Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-flow-update

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Jari,

No problem with your editorial comments - they are small enough that
I suggest holding them until after the LC.

> four bits from the flow label as reserved values 

There was a pretty clear consensus against having any special bits, when
this sort of idea was discussed last year.

Thanks
   Brian

On 2011-06-20 17:12, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I have reviewed this specification. It is well written and ready to move
> forward; I have asked for an IETF Last Call.
> 
> I did have two very minor editorial comments, and one personal opinion:
> 
>> In this case too, the word
>> "alone" is to be interpreted precisely - a router is allowed to
>> combine the flow label value with other data in order to produce a
>> uniformly distributed hash.
>>   
> 
> I think this would be simpler if you had just said "But the word "alone"
> needs to be taken into account - a router is allowed ..."
> 
> (There is nothing precise or imprecise about this. You just can't bypass
> the key word from the rule.)
> 
>> The main novelty is that a forwarding node (typically a first-hop or
>> ingress router) may set the flow label value if the source has not
>> done so, according to the same recommendations that apply to the
>> source.  This might place a considerable processing load on ingress
>> routers, even if they adopted a stateless method of flow
>> identification and label assignment.
>>   
> 
> I'd prefer to replace the second sentence with "This might place a
> considerable processing load on ingress routers that choose to do so,
> even ..."
> 
> Finally, the personal opinion was that I'd probably have left four bits
> from the flow label as reserved values (set to zero on send; included as
> flow label bits for all other processing). I'm not asking you to change
> the approach or the draft, just stating that I would have left some room
> for future developments.
> 
> Jari
> 
>