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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 20 September 2015 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 1CA231B4422 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 02:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 U-hIJcTgNsoW for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 02:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC05A1B4420 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 02:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B63318013B2; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:16:01 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
References: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com> <55FD8852.7040307@pi.nu> <CAA=duU1+iOo_jaA7EOzGRQ6LqnMwLQwTNpJLfd8KVYofTJ9_yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <55FE794C.1070606@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:15:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1+iOo_jaA7EOzGRQ6LqnMwLQwTNpJLfd8KVYofTJ9_yw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/BTBNk1Hm14AvJsPyjmKJ7Fwu8mw>
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: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:16:06 -0000

Andy,

I tend to agree.

Authors,

This is still an individual document, so this is not a wg/wg chair 
directive, but I think that if no further need for a split arises,
then you should go ahead with one document.

/Loa

On 2015-09-19 18:28, 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>