Re: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

I agree with the statements in your email, below.

Yours Irrespectively,

John


Juniper Business Use Only

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 5:21 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>; pals-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> MPLS working group and and the Open MPLS DT,
> 
> The working group chairs believe the current situation is:
> 
> The Framework document must be solution independent and say:
> 
> a packet may carry Ancillary Data using one or both of the following
> methods:
> 
>     (1) in-stack, and
> 
>     (2) post-stack.
> 
> It is up to the document specifying the Network Action to specify which method
> is to be used for which Ancillary Data.
> 
> Note, a Network Action may not require inclusion of Ancillary Data.
> 
> Is this the consensus of the working group? Please respond to the MPLS WG mail
> list.
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson
> for the Open DT wg chairs
> 
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!
> NEt6yMaO-
> gk!D86zIacdZy1DbyuV66bl4PLsq35o75CB3F1r6ochchj3JAwgtRTc4iTxllKp4HSCfW
> hhrw4ubQ$