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

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 17 August 2015 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D603A1ACD5B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sNDlcLusnh6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521C31ACD3D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2028; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439826614; x=1441036214; h=reply-to:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=5m686mF18NvDO+bX6QcsE52EnIhVxjSSJc5l7jQNje8=; b=JxWiEHwffPDxkmzVanSKCAqnJtiNT/oURaezYoJrG4MmxHW6aJAEwYwy lEcoXwCpI/BBtdUacNn6KSIkUihMVF5hWZT+XoE+MzuMKXpqTbj32ClUN szzf2SVZobQgHNJIf9owloDfV6D2TFNdsCVMqkGEJxjWfbu0lunr3+AI8 w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,695,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="606418649"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2015 15:50:12 +0000
Received: from [] (ams-stbryant-88110.cisco.com []) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7HFoC1h010265; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:50:12 GMT
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:50:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050307060400090100090803"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ir7d-0hrcU5y_qt1aY4jRSF5QsI>
Cc: draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [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
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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, 17 Aug 2015 15:50:16 -0000

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

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