Re: [mpls] R: PSC: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00

Huub, hi

Not sure how consistent your answers are in this email.

You believe that the priority swap should be instituted "to provide
consistent behavior", Yet you say that the change should be made to
RFC6378, which would make the behavior inconsistent with RFC4427.

So do we want to be consistent or inconsistent?

BR,
yaacov

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>  Hi Eric,
>> You wrote "is it appropriate to make this priority swap?"
>> My answer is yes, it shall be done for the reasons explained in liaison
>> 1205, bullet 1.
>>
>
> It should be mandatory to swap to provide consistent behaviour.
>
>
>  You wrote "- what do we need to change?  rfc5654?  rfc4427?  "
>> No I don't believe it is required to change any RFC but RFC 6378
>>
>
> Indeed RFC6378 should be fixed.
>
> Regards, Huub.
>
>
>
>  -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di
>> Eric Osborne (eosborne)
>> Inviato: mercoledì 17 aprile 2013 14:16
>> A: mpls@ietf.org
>> Oggetto: [mpls] PSC: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-**priority-00
>>
>> This thread is for discussing draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-**priority-00.  In
>> brief, the draft proposes swapping the priorities between FS and SF-P (see
>> section 4.3.2 of rfc6378).  This proposed swap has a long history, dating
>> back to when PSC was an ID.  For some history, see
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/**liaison/1229/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1229/>
>> and
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/**liaison/1234/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1234/>
>>
>> The questions that I think are relevant here are:
>>
>> - is it appropriate to make this priority swap?
>>    - are there alternative approaches?
>>    - what do we need to change?  rfc5654?  rfc4427?
>> - if we don't make the change, does this expose implementation to
>> problems?
>> - if we do make the change, how do we go about it?
>>
>> but of course any and all discussion is welcome.
>>
>> As with the other threads I'm going to leave my two cents out of this
>> introductory email but I'll chime in when discussion starts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> eric
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mpls<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>>
>> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle
>> persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante
>> dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora
>> abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di
>> darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua
>> distruzione, Grazie.
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain
>> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination,
>> copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
>> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mpls<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *********************************************************************
>               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/mpls<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>

-- 
Thanx and BR,
yaacov

*Still looking for new opportunity*