[mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of EXP field)

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