Re: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application

Gregory Mirsky <> Mon, 21 September 2015 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA661ACE21 for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TkiGOUrPZ6Rs for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9F271ACE23 for <>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79ef6d000007f54-27-55ffe6c33009
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 85.15.32596.3C6EFF55; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:15:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:00:49 -0400
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "" <>, "Andrew G. Malis" <>, Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application
Thread-Index: AQHQ2QRs/jMn4zJVXk+jRIMR3wIG855Ee6oAgAAF0gCAArB9AIAASVbw
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:00:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112218DCB92eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlO7hZ/9DDRqfqlmcfn6KzeL3w8/s Fv/mzmG2uLV0JavFuadzGB1YPab83sjqsXPWXXaPJUt+MnnMmt7G5vHl8me2ANYoLpuU1JzM stQifbsEroxvX8+xFUyprmhptG1gfFPexcjJISFgIjH93B8mCFtM4sK99WwgtpDAUUaJtqNJ XYxcQPZyRokrFy6ygCTYBIwkXmzsYQexRQQKJV6vbmACKWIWmMMocbHvDlhCWCBD4sH331BF mRIdBxYyQthuEue2PgGzWQRUJea+7mMFsXkFfCWO/rgCtRlo2/sHNiA2p4CmxPQJDWBzGIGu +35qDdilzALiEreezIe6WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIWwliUlLzwHZHED1+RIdG4QhVglKnJz5 hGUCo+gsJJNmIVTNQlIFEdaUWL9LH6JaUWJK90N2CFtDonXOXHZk8QWM7KsYOUqLU8ty040M NjECY/GYBJvuDsY9Ly0PMQpwMCrx8D7Y/S9UiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjjv/iX3Q4UE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwGurEKj+ouTLj8653ytsy995YcDHvZuW2ezaT/LizXGeIuxkL Cjx0kmts/au+UNshd3676YRze6Yk77toHr/+u3db/Jp/J6NcbBs8D2xe4WfblXpK2uv/o6Wb lnwT/V62eqlm5498h8rw/f1fmSbP56xYkx/3xOFbky3DEvuZB6WkU3rsT2UUKbEUZyQaajEX FScCAJV1+XOmAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:00:55 -0000

Dear All,
I agree with Stewart that extracting architectural part of the synonymous labels discussion would improve the clarity and may add new use cases in addition to RFC 6374. As co-author I support the split and will be glad to work on that.


From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:33 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis; Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application


Worrying about the work needed to process the drafts (which will be quite small) is putting
the cart before the horse.

What is important is clarity of ideas and clarity of understanding by the reader. The IETF
is somewhat unique in it's production of micro specs that provide separation of ideas
and this has served us well over the years.

Whilst the draft started out as an RFC6374 solution, the technology proposed has a
more universal application.

It therefore makes sense to me to produce a description of base technology uncluttered
by a detailed solution to an application, and a separate text on the application.

- Stewart

On 19/09/2015 17:28, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

If this was a big effort, I'd say go for the split, but it's a short draft so I don't really see the need to double the overhead work for the WG, chairs, ADs, and RFC Editor for what would be two very short drafts!


On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Loa Andersson <<>> wrote:
Working Group,

I have not seen any responses to this mail from Stewart! Take a look
and see if you have an opinion.


On 2015-08-17 17:50, Stewart Bryant wrote:
At the last IETF the question arose as to what the correct
document structure should be for the synonymous
label work.

The core draft is: draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels
which is a mixture pure SFL work and RFC6374 applications

My inclination is to split the draft in two to separate the
SFL architecture from the RFC6374 application. However I
would like to take the sense of the WG on this.

I know that there needs to be more work on requirements
and will do a word by word review of that text and make proposals
and of course review comments on any of these texts are
always welcome.

- Stewart

mpls mailing list<>

mpls mailing list<>


For corporate legal information go to: