Jeff, IMHO, the MSD or the MSD(type 1) just indicates a certain label imposition capability which should be signaling-agnostic. More specially, the MSD or MSD(type1) capability could be signaled via IGP, BGP or PCEP.
If the semantic of MSD (type 1) as defined in your IGP-MSD draft equals the semantics of MSD as defined in PCEP-SR draft, I believe it'd better to iron out such terminology inconsistency ASAP. Best regards, Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2017年12月22日 5:22 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian > Hopps; [email protected] > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > Xuxiaohu, > > To clarify: > The concept had been developed in both, in parallel, however PCEP > implementation is limited (node only, PCC in question has to have PCEP > sessions > with the PCE), and this is clearly stated in the draft – if MSD is known from > both > sources (PCEP and IGP/BGP-LS) the later takes precedence. IGP drafts are the > source of truth when it comes to semantics definitions. > Personally, I don’t see any confusion wrt name, all drafts have been around > for > quite some time, reviewed by many people, presented in academia and > networking events, noone was ever confused… > > I’m not sure about value of your proposal either, and I’d leave the decision > what to use to people who are the consumers of the technology, those who are > going to implement it (at least 3 MSD implementations are on their ways). > > As the last point – we are not “considering” expanding, the draft is clear > about > the future extensions to come and encoding is done in a way to facilitate such > extensions. > This is the working group last call for the draft, not a discussion whether we > should proceed with the technology: > If you see any technical problems with the solution proposed – I’d be the > first > to listen to you and address them! > > Happy holidays! > > Cheers, > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 18:40 > To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]>, "Ketan Talaulikar > (ketant)" > <[email protected]>, Christian Hopps <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:40:16 -0800 (PST) > > Hi Les, > > If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) as > described below: > > "The "Maximum SID Depth" (1 > octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label > stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of > imposing on a packet." > > Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as defined > in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering renaming the capability > of imposing the maximum number of labels so as to eliminate possible > confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth (WLD) as opposed to the Readable > Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ? > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) > > 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02 > > 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; [email protected] > > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > Ketan - > > > > Thanx for the comments. > > I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than imposition > > values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted to only > imposition > cases. > > > > Les > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM > > > To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG to > > > consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just > > > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits related to > other > > actions (e.g. > > > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming across > > > various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack for different > > > purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the MSD ability to > > > cover those as they arise. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian > > > Hopps > > > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for > > > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07 > > > > > > > > > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/ > > > > > > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO > patterns. > > > > > > An IPR statement exists: > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-is > > > is- > > > segment-routing-msd > > > > > > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware of > > > any > > > *new* IPR. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Isis-wg mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Isis-wg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
