[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr (2nd WG call)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gyan,
thank you for sharing your view on progressing MNA solution and the
realization of IOAM in the MPLS network. I have a question. You assert that
"IOAM requires mutable data". Could you point where in IOAM specifications,
i.e., RFC 9197 and RFC 9326, a mutable information element is required to
realize on-path operational state and performance metric information
collection?

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 12:34 AM Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Dear Chairs & WG
>
> I agree with points raised by  Zafar, Jimmy, Tianran, Loe and other WG
> members that this is a hardware implementation that is standards track and
> that said must have a minimum two interoperable implementations.
>
> I support both ISD and PSD.
>
> There has been a lot of discussions on ML about both and I think both
> should be included in this draft as they are in the MNA framework
> architecture draft section 3.6.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-10#name-encoding-of-post-stack-data
>
> I agree the PSD work should be completed before we move forward with
> progressing this document.
>
> This was from “IOAM and PSD” discussion this past summer:
>
> From Michel Menth 8/3/23 below
> - presented some results at an interim meeting before:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-mpls-01/session/mpls
>
> IOAM requires mutable data. In combination with multiple labels, e.g., for
> SR, these mutable data need to be near the bottom of the stack, otherwise
> they get popped along the way. Moving them to PSD makes encoding more
> efficient without increasing the effective header length that needs  to be
> parsed. Therefore, we think PSD is the better option for applications like
> IOAM.
> This draft is not ready for progression at this time.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 1:24 AM Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Dear chairs and the WG,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with points raised by Jimmy, Tianran, Loe and others.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is hardware implementation.
>>
>> The ask is to progress the document as a standards track RFC.
>>
>> Having at least two interoperable implementations by vendors should be a
>> bare minimum bar.
>>
>>
>>
>> Support for PSD is part of the MNA architecture.
>>
>> There was a rather encrypted WG poll on PSD interest which shows clear
>> support from vendors and operators to work on the PSD option.
>>
>> However, the working group has not heard any outcome of the poll.
>>
>> The PSD draft remains an individual draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s first have the working group complete the work on PSD and all the
>> pieces.
>>
>> The document is not ready for progression as a standards track RFC at
>> this point in time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards … Zafar
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 7:48 PM
>> *To: *Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad
>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>> (2nd WG call)
>>
>> Hi Tarek and WG,
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not support the publication of this draft.
>>
>> I agree with Jimmy there are serious concerns about ISD implementation
>> and performance.
>>
>> I believe ISD is not the right approach for MNA, we will not implement it.
>>
>> I need a knob in existing MNA hdr to disable ISD and enable PSD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tianran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Dongjie (Jimmy) [mailto:jie.dong=[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 27, 2024 12:28 AM
>> *To:* Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> *Cc:* MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* [mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>> (2nd WG call)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tarek,
>>
>>
>>
>> Before the 1st WG LC, some implementation experience with the -04 version
>> of this draft was presented on an interim meeting:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-mpls-01/session/mpls.
>> That implementation was from Academia.
>>
>>
>>
>> As shown in the meeting materials, the implementors met some challenges
>> with the encodings in -04 version, they asked some questions and also gave
>> some proposals for possible optimization. As part of the WG LC, it would be
>> important to check whether the issues raised at that time have be addressed
>> by the latest version. It would be helpful if some feedback on the latest
>> version can be provided by those implementors.
>>
>>
>>
>> At IETF 120 I asked one question about the implementation report. Are we
>> aware of any other implementation of this document, besides the
>> implementation of the -04 version from Academia? This would be important to
>> gauge the maturity of the document and the interest in implementing it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jie
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2024 9:25 PM
>> *To:* [e-mail]
>> *Cc:* MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
>> (2nd WG call)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/>. This is the
>> 2nd WG last call for this document.
>>
>> 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])
>>
>> 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 October 8, 2024.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>