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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

On 10-10-28 02:08 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 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.

OK. Will update this.

> 
>>> 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.

Sounds good. Will do. Ole also suggested using something like the relay 
agent Remote-ID (RFC4649).

Thanks
Suresh