Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 03/07/2018 21:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>>>     This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
>>>>     word in all but exceptional circumstances.
>>> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).
>> The text with the MUST is
>>
>> "This document updates {{RFC4448}} to state that
>> where both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet
>> pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used."
>>
>> This is conditional on both equipments supporting the feature.
>>
>> During WG discussion there was a lot of discussion on the degree to
>> which we would mandate the migration to CW.  The problem is that
>> the use of the CW has hardware implications. At one stage we went
>> so far as to recommend the the phasing out of equipment that could
>> not support the CW, but we got strong pushback from a specialist part
>> of the vendor community. This led us to a compromise position where
>> we RECOMMEND the use of the CW, but only  mandate that the CW be
>> used if it is available in the equipment used at both ends of
>> the PW.
> Fair enough, but the text doesn't quite say that.
>
> OLD:
> This document updates [RFC4448] to state that where both the
> ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control
> word, then the CW MUST be used.
>
> NEW:
> This document updates [RFC4448] to state that both the
> ingress PE and the egress PE SHOULD support the Ethernet
> pseudowire control word, and that if supported the CW MUST be used.
>
>

Hi Brian

That seems to be a useful change which reflects the intent of the document.

Deborah, how do you want to deal with this, a re-spin or an editor's note.

- Stewart