[spring] Private MNA definition (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srp m-mpls)

 Dear mpls WG/Chairs:

I'm writing about draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls, which is close to WGLC
in spring.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/

The document defines a new MPLS Network Action, MNA.TSF ("Timestamp and
Forward"), used for a loopback measurement mode with STAMP over SR-MPLS
(see Section 7). Its opcode is operator-selected (not a registered/signaled
value) — so the draft standardizes the definition of MNA.TSF while leaving
the code point to local configuration.

That combination — a standardized definition of a locally assigned MNA —
isn't something we've seen before.

Before we go further, we'd like the MPLS WG's read on:

(1) Whether this "standard definition + operator-selected opcode" pattern
is consistent with how rfc9994 intended private-use MNAs to work.

(2) Whether the MPLS WG has any concerns with a document outside this WG
defining an MNA this way. Note that the use is constrained to SR-MPLS.


Thanks!

Alvaro (for the spring-chairs)

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]