Subject: [mpls] draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:54:16 +0000

Hi authors, WG

Thanks for the draft.
I've read the draft and I find it useful.
Please find below some proposed comments.

  1.  For easier referencing the requirements, may be numbering them could be useful.
  2.  From reading the abstract, title and introduction, my understanding is that the scope is requirement on the _Indicators_ (not requirements on the Ancillary Data). If this is a correct reading, section 2 seems to include requirements on the Ancillary Data. E.g.
     *   "Neither an ADI or ancilliary data must..."
     *   "Care needs to be taken in the coeistence of ancillary data..."
     *   "Mechanisms are required to determine that all nodes that need to process the ancillary data can read"
     *   "A solition must be provided to verify the authenticity of ancillary data processed to LSRs."
     *   ...
  3.  "Any solution MUST respect the principle that Special Purpose Labels are the mechanism of last resort.".

I fully agree. That seems to mean that the use of 1 SPL is better than N; but also that the use of 0 SPL is better than 1. I guess that this refers to the use/allocation of _new_ SPL, if so may be this should be said explicitly.

  1.  "A solition must be provided to verify the authenticity of ancillary data processed to LSRs."

  Is this intentionally must (rather than MUST)?"

That seems like a possibly expensive requirement for a transit LSR (I'm assuming crypto checksum).

  1.  Is there a requirement to be able to modify ADI in transit? If so IMO the requirement needs to include no impact on ECMP load balancing.

Thanks.
Regards,
--Bruno

Orange Restricted
From: mpls <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Review reminder from today's DT meeting

Hi,

It was discussed during today's design team meeting about reviewing the requirement specification draft "Requirements for MPLS Label Stack Indicators for Ancillary Data".

Here is the link to the draft:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-mpls/drafts
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements

Snapshot of the AI from today's meeting:

  1.  The Requirement Specification
"Requirements for MPLS Label Stack Indicators for Ancillary Data"
draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements>
Matthew and Stewart
We need to continue to discuss the requirements, one first step could be to have 5-6 people committing to a first round of reviews.

  *   Asking team for more detailed review.
  *   Volunteers to review in 2 weeks: Kireeti, Loa, Stewart, Wim, Haoyu, Tarek, Yingzhen
  *   AI (Yingzhen): to send reminder email to volunteers to review and give feedback by 12/2

Thanks,
Yingzhen

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.