Re: Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases

Hi Haoyu,
I wouldn't say that I don't like any use case, I just don't understand how
the RFC 8596 is related to MIAD work. As for your questions, I believe that
all these scenarios should be discussed by the SFC WG. In fact,
draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh defines one them already.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 12:50 Haoyu Song <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> How about IOAM (or other types of OAM) + SFC (i.e., apply OAM
> simultaneously) ? Or Slicing + SFC (i.e., apply SFC on a particular slice)
> ? I think these scenarios are possible. Maybe I misunderstand something.
> Could you please give more explanation on why you don’t like this use case
> particularly? Thanks.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2022 10:56 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Tarek Saad <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; DetNet WG <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> can you give an example of "the other use cases in the same packet"? I
> don't think that discussing some hypothetical scenarios is a productive way
> for the Open DT.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:05 AM Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> What I think is that whatever output is from MIAD, it will provide a new
> solution to support NSH SFC in MPLS.
>
> RFC 8596 shows a way to support NSH SFC in MPLS, but it may not be
> cooperative with the other use cases in the same packet. MIAD tries to
> solve this problem.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 26, 2022 4:36 PM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Tarek Saad <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; DetNet WG <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> I am sorry, but after reading your note, I cannot find an answer to my
> question How the MIAD work is applicable to the informational RFC 8596? In
> other words, What do you see as missing in the solution described in RFC
> 8596 that MIAD is expected to address?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:34 AM Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> There have been some existing standards (e.g., EL and this one) and
> proposals (some are listed in the document) with each dealing with a
> specific use case. I think it’s beneficial to list them all and then
> consider to use a generic mechanism to handle all these otherwise piecemeal
> solutions. Of course, finally we would need to pick which shall actually be
> supported with the generic method, but at this point, we shall not limit
> ourself.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 25, 2022 9:54 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Tarek Saad <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; DetNet WG <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> in RFC 8596 I don't find anything that would require any modification to
> the existing MPLS architecture. I would agree that SFC NSH using MPLS to
> connect SFP components might benefit from the new enhancements to the MPLS,
> but so would any other client that uses the MPLS network. Do you think that
> the use case document should list them all?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 9:42 AM Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>    - in my earlier comments, I've noted that the informational RFC 8596
>    appears not posing any requirements for enhancements in the MPLS data
>    plane. If I am missing something, please let me know.
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> The RFC is mentioned because it shows that SFC NSH has been considered to
> be supported in MPLS as well, so it’s a legitimate use case like the others
> in the draft. When we need to support multiple such use cases at the same
> time, we need a generic mechanism to support them, so the use-case draft
> serves as a motivation for our work in the ODT.
>
> Hopefully this answers your question. Thanks,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:09 PM
> *To:* Tarek Saad <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* mpls <[email protected]>; [email protected]; DetNet WG <[email protected]>;
> spring <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases
>
>
>
> Hi Tarek,
>
> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. I've reviewed
> the diff and got several follow-up notes:
>
>    - the new text in the Introduction section explains the ISD as being
>    encoded as labels:
>
> within the label stack, e.g., encoded as labels, referred to as In
>
>                  Stack Data (ISD), and
>
> I think s/as labels/into label stack elements/ makes the text a bit more
> accurate. What do you think?
>
>
>    - in my earlier comments, I've noted that the informational RFC 8596
>    appears not posing any requirements for enhancements in the MPLS data
>    plane. If I am missing something, please let me know.
>    - I might have missed it earlier. The TSN is the term used for a very
>    specific technology developed at IEEE to support, for example, URLLC
>    services. The DetNet WG defines the methodology in support of these
>    services using IETF technologies - MPLS and IP. I think it would be
>    appropriate if an IETF document refers to Deterministic Networking, not
>    TSN. What is your opinion?
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 5:52 AM Tarek Saad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments. I’ve addressed several of your comments. The
> latest diffs (revision to be uploaded soon) can be found at:
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-00.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tsaad-dev/drafts/master/miad-usecases/draft-dt-mpls-miad-usecases.txt
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl1%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-00.txt%26url2%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2Ftsaad-dev%2Fdrafts%2Fmaster%2Fmiad-usecases%2Fdraft-dt-mpls-miad-usecases.txt&data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Cda35e9b46e054e41cf9b08d9faec0dc5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637816714042137291%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=NBW4%2BTmNyQz%2Fs7HwwxW0U1MFxejG7DlRZObINe14Iw0%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek (for co-authors)
>
>
>
> *From: *spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <
> [email protected]>
> *Date: *Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:15 PM
> *To: *[email protected] <
> [email protected]>, mpls <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] <[email protected]>, DetNet WG <[email protected]>, spring <
> [email protected]>
> *Subject: *[spring] Comments on draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases
>
> Dear Authors,
>
> thank you for your work putting this document together. It helps to
> analyze essential use cases in the scope of the work at the Open DT.
> Attached, please find a copy of the draft with my notes and some
> editorial suggestions. I hope you'll find some of them helpful.
>
> I am looking forward to your feedback and questions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring