Re: review of draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Suresh,

>>> The applicability is limited to the N:1 VLAN allocation model.
>>>   
>>
>> Since this is in the abstract, could you expand "N:1 VLAN" to 
>> something a bit more descriptive? I know what it is, you know what it 
>> is, but some other persons later reading this RFC may not be clear 
>> about it without sufficient DSL architecture background.
>
> Does replacing "N:1 VLAN allocation model" with
>
> "broadband network deployment scenarios where multiple user ports are 
> mapped to the same virtual interface on the Edge Router."
>
> work?

Yes.

>> Don't we need an "ID Type" field or similar, so that we can specify 
>> different encodings. You could start with ID Type = 0 which has only 
>> local significance. 
>
> The way I say it, the line ID was an opaque field. Do we need to 
> define what is inside?

That's one approach, but -08 does not even say that. If that's the 
approach we're taking with regards to this field, then you should say 
something like "The contents of this field are not standardized and have 
only local significance."

However, I would personally probably insert a type octet in front so 
that it would be possible to add different types of identification 
later. But I don't feel strongly about it.

Jari