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

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
>
>