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

["Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

I agree with this. There are use cases that require ISD and use cases that can get by with PSD. However, I think there should be very careful due diligence on an application’s use of ISD,  in particular.

Matthew

From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 30 May 2022 at 22:20
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] Poll 1: ISD and PSD in the MNA Framework
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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls