Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Yes, one solution. And we support progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as that solution.

Thanks,
Rakesh


From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:53 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

Then we agree that we want only one solution.

I read the poll as being agnostic on the question of what the one solution would look like.  Given that there are at least two solutions that seem to work (and are now quite similar) on the table, I would expect a fairly typical process for getting to one good solution.

Yours,

Joel
On 9/12/2022 5:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments.

Please see inline with <RG>..

From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:41 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution

The phrasing in this sub-thread of messages seems a bit odd to me.

Are you folks really saying you want to see two (or more) different solutions for MNA?  That seems highly undesirable.

<RG> We are saying - progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr as a “single” MNA solution.

<RG> Definitely not two or more different solutions for MNA.

I read the poll as choosing between one solution and many solutions.  You seem to be saying you read the poll as being between crafting something new and having multiple solutions??

<RG> We are saying - progressing one solution only, which is defined in draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr.

Thanks,

Rakesh



Yours,

Joel
On 9/12/2022 3:50 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
Hi WG Chairs,

I support option (B) as progressing the draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr (that is well-thought of by the co-authors) as a single solution for MNA.

I do not support option (A) as new authors from the open DT team to take pieces from the draft and submit a new document.

Thanks,
Rakesh



From: mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 6 September 2022 at 19:50
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [mpls] Poll on way forward for MNA solution
Dear MPLS WG and MPLS Open DT,

Over the past months, the MPLS Open DT has reviewed several proposals for the packet encodings for the MNA solution.
A compilation of the multiple solutions brought forward is present at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/MNADocumnets.

We believe that currently there are two alternative ways to progress the MNA solution.
One of them requires a single unified solution, and the other allows for individual solutions to progress independently.
We expect any unified solution to document the pieces from the presented solutions that are discussed and agreed upon in the weekly MPLS Open DT meeting.



The co-chairs for the working groups hosting the Open MPLS DT are polling the WG on their preference to move forward.
Please respond with either:



    A) “I support the MPLS Open DT bringing forward a single unified solution"
    OR
    B) “I support progressing the individual solution(s) independently"

We will allow this poll to run for two weeks (ending on Sept 19th).

Regards,
Tarek (for the MPLS Open DT co-chairs)
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls




_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls