Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of EXPfield)
"Shahram Davari" <davari@rogers.com> Tue, 19 August 2008 16:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34C83A6C69; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDD73A6C55 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.754, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XI-vG1jGOfsx for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.53.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 369A128C16E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36838 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2008 16:37:17 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=UOR26cwwLzyKT2WBOMFFEx9TrHArvQmVgILgzNOAXINwW/L/o8xIRljonlVEgH8AUqYcHnJwxfHJfkyHmo3gxuFLW84oaHMc6qWiZvwyia+9z9zXZ12eEMLAiQAEFyh1jnzbZc3hkDehLcksbv2ivmACTawFMubmMFeJW4KqTsM= ;
Received: from unknown (HELO ShahramPC) (davari@rogers.com@99.238.119.231 with login) by smtp126.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2008 16:37:16 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: y9YDfkYVM1k_qGlEkQ9ZQKVu9e8R27S7CHz3y.A20Bd7ya07OH_dT_5_9olC5jCfDw--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: Shahram Davari <davari@rogers.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF039AFD07@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF68401AAF6E4@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF68401AAF6E4@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:37:15 -0400
Message-ID: <00f601c90219$d746d030$85d47090$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AckBcE00i7UqvG1jEd2DSgAewhIyZgAlsH4QAAJZ9MAAAiPwEA==
Content-Language: en-ca
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of EXPfield)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, I also agree with Eric. First of all the EXP bits are not only used for CoS but also for Drop Precedence (RFC 3270 proposed standard)) and Explicit Congestion notification (RFC5129 Proposed standard). Also IETF may decide to have other uses for EXP bits in the future. So an RFC that explains this and says that the EXP bits are reserved for IETF use only and explaining that they are not really for experimental purpose is a better approach. Shahram -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Diego Caviglia Sent: August-19-08 11:32 AM To: Eric Gray; George Swallow; Loa Andersson Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of EXPfield) Hi all, Seems to me that the Eric proposal is quite good, probably is the easiest way to solve this issue. Just my two cents BR D > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Gray > Sent: martedì 19 agosto 2008 16.42 > To: George Swallow; Loa Andersson > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of > EXPfield) > > George/Loa, > > I am concerned that we may be signing ourselves up for > a slew of RFC revisions/replacements in making this name > change. > > Just to make things clearer - is it the intention that > we're creating a single RFC that explains the change and will > then be listed as "updating" all RFCs that currently use the > term "EXP", or are we in fact signing up to replace a number > of RFCs? > > It's one thing to decide that the field name "CoS" is > not worse than the name "EXP"; it is quite another thing to > sign up for churning a number of RFCs to replace a term - > because it is "nor worse than" the existing term. > > Another thing to consider is that - even if we plan > only to list this new RFC as "updating" all of the RFCs that > currently refer to the field name "EXP" - we may be setting > a record for the number of RFCs "updated" by a single new > RFC. Given the number of people who still refer to RFC 2547 > VPNs, it is not all that clear what difference an RFC that > proposes to change a field name from "EXP bits" to "CoS bits" > will really have. However, if we don't even list this RFC as > "updating" these other RFCs, then it is very likely that the > new RFC will have even less impact on usage (possibly having > no effect what-so-ever over the long run) - since a person > reading any of these existing RFCs will have no particular > reason to know about this new one. > > In my opinion, a better use of everybody's time would > be to write an RFC that simply explains the way the IETF's > use of the term "Experimental" actually works (i.e. - you > do not get to pick experimental values, or define symantic > meanings for a set of values, for use in the Internet scope > without obtaining a specific value (or values) from a number > space manager, such as IANA). Such a thing would be quite a > reasonable thing to do as a simple process BCP. > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of George Swallow > > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:24 PM > > To: mpls@ietf.org > > Subject: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field > > > > During the last call on "EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field" > > draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt, there were comments on > > alternatives to the name COS. > > > > This message initiates a two week poll on whether the name COS > > is good enough, or if some other name is needed. The poll closes > > 23:59 Sept 1 GMT. > > > > Please answer with a simple yes or no. You may send any > > additional comment > > in a separate message (with a different subject line). > > > > ...George > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpls mailing list > > mpls@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)
- [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming of EX… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming o… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Shane Amante
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Cao Wei
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field HENDERICKX Wim
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Harshith Shetty
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field jordan.britnell
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Jiang Yuan-long
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Matthew Meyer
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Tomohiro Otani
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Santanu.Ganguly
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Phil Bedard
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field BOCCI Matthew
- Re: [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming o… Shahram Davari
- [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll o… Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field phani bandaru
- Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Po… Diego Caviglia
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field buyukkoc
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Francois Le Faucheur IMAP
- Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Po… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Shahram Davari
- [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on rena… Francois Le Faucheur IMAP
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Peter Tomsu
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field John Kenney
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … John Kenney
- [mpls] FW: Poll on renaming of EXP field Howard Green
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … David Allan
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Peng He
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Mach Chen
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Vijayanand C
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Tom Petch
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Francois Le Faucheur IMAP
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Francois Le Faucheur IMAP
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Daniele Ceccarelli
- [mpls] Discuss of EXP field Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Discuss of EXP field Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] "Traffic Management" (was Re: Poll on … Eric Gray
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Moshe Ashkenazi
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Vullo, Anthony D (Tony)
- Re: [mpls] FW: Poll on renaming of EXP field Vadali, Somayajulu (Somu)
- [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field mushaoxing 63008
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field saquib khan
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Annamaria Fulignoli
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Andrew Sergeev
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Michael Lyngbøl
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field Don Fedyk