IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 21 September 2015 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6601B2FCD for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xU_h1sRo0YVf for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE051B2FC2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so138214529wic.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=FsSZnHVRe4OhWcL8nhVKuQJD9gj+vMA+kR/088JXF7c=; b=hNrVa08ameAb/n+xRaUJ6Fpvhxd/pc3gL0iEm4c/qxt/U2uLLimsh8Ag3Bz112GpGp KpQxHMAa6EW0eQ7WhFJlGGPGpgOr49gBh5z2s2wDYwJ2fBVwh82pFx41W5kbeCfl9Jfl F/J+F59evp1ajeQ9J1QTpcHfrzBUTvcL9d2WMHdWPs6tTSAH4V0cuJPRNj03siXompKh tL9FulcTgdHzfVQxSe/2UfPxH2L44seidrpN7E4zHkL2ZuPqHGP/Z6rEtKvLI0/rNK9K Z39s28qzb12n/t3PZKoxIV3HXHm5QARg2SPEGcjjtBemKqCnwS81qoq2onhLM7ilBV3u JdMQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.71.39 with SMTP id r7mr24405850wju.120.1442830337864; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.9.212 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55FFCEC0.3020805@cisco.com>
References: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com> <55FD8852.7040307@pi.nu> <CAA=duU1+iOo_jaA7EOzGRQ6LqnMwLQwTNpJLfd8KVYofTJ9_yw@mail.gmail.com> <55FFCEC0.3020805@cisco.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:11:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2Uk2TxQospyWUCaiqtmQmPCKYn0LenS=7_uR3aJBAYPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd916a8c27a4105203f1d51"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/4_1962QFo8M9gp8MN3Fo_iJ04HU>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:12:21 -0000

Stewart,

As Loa said, it's still an individual draft, so it's up to you!

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:

> Andy
>
> 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:
>
> Loa,
>
> 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!
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> I have not seen any responses to this mail from Stewart! Take a look
>> and see if you have an opinion.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> work.
>>>
>>> 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@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>
>
>
> --
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email