Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header - do we need post stack data?

Hi Jie,
thank you for pointing this out to me. I have some thoughts about that poll
and this discussion:

   - That poll, as I understood it at the time, was whether PSD part of MNA
   is needed. And I supported it in that context.
   - Now, I look at the proposed PSD in MNA solution, and I see that it
   makes overall MNA too complex.
   - I then look at the MNA use cases documented in the WG document and
   cannot find one that cannot be addressed using ISD MNA.
   - I then come to conclusion that at this time there is no apparent need
   to standardize overly complex PSD solution.
   - I think that it would be beneficial concentrate on improving the ISD
   MNA mechanism to progress it through IETF process.
   - Because the ISD solution already has "hooks" for a PSD MNA, I imagine
   that it will be possible to integrate it if a better PSD MNA solution
   and/or if a use case which requires use of PSD  brought to the table.

And thank you for helping getting my thoughts together in the course of our
discussion.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 7:22 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Please see my previous mail to Joel.
>
>
>
> It was recorded as the result of MPLS WG poll, hence it is a WG consensus:
>
>
>
>   “- The poll shows that there is a strong consensus support for this
>
>    position.
>
>
>
>    - There is also a fairly strong opinion that solutions that specify
>
>    the use of ISD, should take special care to provide the motivation
>
>    for the use of ISD.
>
>
>
>   The authors of the framework document should make any necessary
>
>   updates to the framework document. Other MNA documents should be
>
>   updated accordingly.”
>
>
>
> According to the WG consensus, a complete MNA solution would need include
> both ISD and PSD.
>
>
>
> And in the January Open DT meeting which you also attended, many people
> indicated their support to poll draft-jags and draft-song together for
> adoption.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:37 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* mpls <[email protected]>; MPLS Working Group <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; pals-chairs <[email protected]>; DetNet WG <
> [email protected]>; DetNet Chairs <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header
> - do we need post stack data?
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> I don't think that using terms properly is a "word game".
>
> Consensus of a IETF community is the cornerstone of the IETF process, as I
> understand RFC 2026. And there are mechanisms that help to determine
> whether the community has reached the consensus on this or that subject of
> discussion.
>
> Below are my notes on the situation:
>
>    - I still have concerns about the complexity of the proposed MNA
>    solution.
>    - I don't see a strong interdependency between draft-jags and
>    draft-song, and agree with the idea, mentioned in the course of this
>    discussion, to progress draft-jags independently as a sole ISD MNA
>    solution. I think that that can be done by removing references to PSD
>    solution and leaving all provisional PSD-related constructs as reserved for
>    future solution (if need to be).
>    - I've read draft-jags with that idea in mind, and the resulting
>    specification appears to me leaner and simpler.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 4:19 PM Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I don’t want to play the word game. You personally attended all the ODT
> meetings and participated in all the discussions. We reached the point to
> progress the two drafts which I think reflects the consensus although no
> official poll was made but the discussion results clearly show these are
> the outputs we’d like to progress. I think It’s wrong time to try to revoke
> the discussion results now. I remember you also raised the concerns for the
> solution’s complexity after the presentation of draft-jags. If the ODT now
> has other thoughts, then we have to restart all the work. I don’t feel that
> the way we want to go.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:03 PM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>; MPLS
> Working Group <[email protected]>; [email protected]; pals-chairs <
> [email protected]>; DetNet WG <[email protected]>; DetNet Chairs <
> [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header
> - do we need post stack data?
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> can you refer me to the announcement by Chairs of the WGs that chartered
> the ODT of the "consensus"? Or your claim reflects your personal opinion?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:46 PM Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
>
>
> I said it’s the ODT consensus and decision to progress the two draft as a
> unified MNA solution. Of course, once they are adopted, it’s MPLS WG’s duty
> to progress them.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:38 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header
> - do we need post stack data?
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> can you point out the poll conducted by WGs Chairs that is the basis for
> your claims of the "consensus"?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 11:33 Haoyu Song <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Greg, answers to your two questions: ODT, and the documents under adoption
> call.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:29 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Tony Li <[email protected]>; mpls <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header
> - do we need post stack data?
>
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
> can you please clarify which group you have in mind when stating that
> there's a consensus? I think that the consensus was demonstrated on the MNA
> drafts adopted by the MPLS WG. Which documents you consider also having the
> same level of support?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 11:19 Haoyu Song <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony and Joel,
>
> All those issues have been discussed many times and now the documents
> reflect the consensus. I don’t think it's a wise idea to rewind the
> discussion back to the state as two years ago.
>
> Best regards,
> Haoyu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:59 AM
> To: Haoyu Song <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Regarding adopting draft-song-mpls-extension-header -
> do we need post stack data?
>
>
> Hi Haoyu,
>
>
> > IOAM is not the only use case. You can check the use case document for
> more examples.
>
>
> I checked. I didn’t see any. Section 2.5.1 does specify that ISD or PSD
> could be used. That certainly doesn’t seem like a compelling use case for
> PSD.  In fact, in latency sensitive applications, I would think you would
> want to use ISD simply for the performance benefits.
>
>
> > I'm sure there are even more use cases once we have this mechanism.
> Actually, IOAM DEX, which is a postcard method, also need post stack
> encapsulation for the instruction header.
>
>
> I believe that there are changes in IOAM DEX that will remove that
> requirement.
>
>
> > As for the complexity, I've evaluated that and given presentations that
> post stack data parsing is simpler than in-stack data parsing. The action
> processing is a property of the action itself so it's location is out of
> consideration.
> > During the ODT discussion, many people actually raised the question that
> weather the ISD is necessary because PSD can basically support all use
> cases, regardless the size of the data. The conclusion is still true:
> considering all the possible use cases, if only one mechanism exists, it
> should be PSD. We resort to having both because ISD can handle some use
> cases with small data.
>
>
>
> As we’ve discussed MANY times, PSD will have a significant performance
> impact on several architectures, most notably legacy (i.e., currently
> deployed) hardware. As a result, MNA is effectively undeployable without
> ISD.  And given ISD, we have no need for PSD.
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmpls&data=05%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7Ce5400b24b98f46ed0e8a08db14682d61%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638126209893469665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nLnT4iwS%2F0s%2F%2BvNO1lD%2FXvy9u7ozdLY1UbAb76FpYUw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>

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