Re: [mpls] working group adoption poll on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie,



> Please feel free to propose terms and definitions if you feel that they would be helpful. What you’re describing sounds a lot like an NAS to me, but perhaps there’s some nuance that I’m missing.
>  
> [Jie #3] My suggestions would be to keep using ADI for the generic indicator, and could use NAI for the indicator of specific action. I don’think we need to mention NAS here, which is specific to ISD based solution. 


First, NAS is general. Even if all data is pushed to PSD, then we still have a special label. That is a degenerate case of a single LSE NAS.

I welcome the suggestion that NAI be more specific and that we also have a generic term.

ADI does not seem like a good term for a generic indicator. What if there is no ancillary data?

I propose Network Action Sub-stack Indcator (NSI) for this purpose.  Proposed definition:

	An LSE used to indicate the presence of a Network Action Sub-stack.

We should also revise the definition of NAS to use this.



> Please note that in the MPLS-TP requirements RFC 5654, reuse existing mechanism is also one of the general requirements:
>  
> “The MPLS-TP design SHOULD as far as reasonably possible reuse existing MPLS standards.”



SHOULD is very different than MUST.


> [Jie #3] The example I gave is about reusing the IOAM data format in draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17, which was designed to be encapsulated in different data plane. It is not related to the ELI discussion.


The requirement that you wrote is general and not specific to IOAM. As a general requirement, it could and would apply to other situations such as ELI.  I think that is NOT the result that we want, so I disagree with the requirement. 


> [Jie #3] Indeed these are my proposals to this document as an individual IETF participant, and it is good if you agree with them. But I don’t quite follow your reason of not using “MUST”, and what requirement key word in RFC2119 do you think would be appropriate? 


SHOULD would allow us to apply them and consider trade-offs.

Tony