[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[WG chair hat: off]

Without further details, this proposal makes no sense to me.  There is no reason that this cannot be done with the existing formats.  Why add even more complexity?

T


> On Jun 3, 2024, at 8:39 PM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG and Authors,
>  
> This draft proposed the 4 LSE formats with sequence: A-B-C-D.
> I want to propose a new LSE format. Let’s call it C’ temporarily.
> C’ is a kind of group, which can group several C formats.
> So the sequence is A-B-C’-C-D.
>  
> This format can reduce the redundancy of several LSEs.
> For example, if several LSEs have the same flow id, we can just put this flow id at the beginning of the group. And all the following LSEs in this group can use.
>  
> Best,
> Tianran
>  
> From: Tarek Saad [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 10:50 AM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>  
> Dear WG,
>  
> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr/>.
>  
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome.
>  
> Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>).
> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
>  
> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>  
> This poll runs until June 18, 2024.
>  
> Thank you,
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)