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 <gregimir...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:56 AM To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com> Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad....@gmail.com>; mpls <m...@ietf.org>; p...@ietf.org; DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org>; spring <spring@ietf.org>; draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org 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 <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com>> 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 <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 4:36 PM To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com>> Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad....@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad....@gmail.com>>; mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org>; DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org<mailto:det...@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org> 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 <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com>> 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 <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 9:54 AM To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com>> Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad....@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad....@gmail.com>>; mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org>; DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org<mailto:det...@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org> 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 <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com<mailto:haoyu.s...@futurewei.com>> 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 <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:09 PM To: Tarek Saad <tsaad....@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad....@gmail.com>> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>; p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org>; DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org<mailto:det...@ietf.org>>; spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org> 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 <tsaad....@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad....@gmail.com>> 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 <spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:15 PM To: draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org> <draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-saad-mpls-miad-useca...@ietf.org>>, mpls <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>, p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org> <p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org>>, DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org<mailto:det...@ietf.org>>, spring <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> 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 spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
