Dear mpls WG/Chairs: I'm writing about draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls, which is close to WGLC in spring.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/ The document defines a new MPLS Network Action, MNA.TSF ("Timestamp and Forward"), used for a loopback measurement mode with STAMP over SR-MPLS (see Section 7). Its opcode is operator-selected (not a registered/signaled value) — so the draft standardizes the definition of MNA.TSF while leaving the code point to local configuration. That combination — a standardized definition of a locally assigned MNA — isn't something we've seen before. Before we go further, we'd like the MPLS WG's read on: (1) Whether this "standard definition + operator-selected opcode" pattern is consistent with how rfc9994 intended private-use MNAs to work. (2) Whether the MPLS WG has any concerns with a document outside this WG defining an MNA this way. Note that the use is constrained to SR-MPLS. Thanks! Alvaro (for the spring-chairs)
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
