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
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050307060400090100090803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

--------------050307060400090100090803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    At the last IETF the question arose as to what the correct<br>
    document structure should be for the synonymous<br>
    label work.<br>
    <br>
    The core draft is: draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels<span
      class="h1"></span>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
    <br>
    which is a mixture pure SFL work and RFC6374 applications<br>
    work.<br>
    <br>
    My inclination is to split the draft in two to separate the <br>
    SFL architecture from the RFC6374 application. However I<br>
    would like to take the sense of the WG on this.<br>
    <br>
    I know that there needs to be more work on requirements<br>
    and will do a word by word review of that text and make proposals<br>
    and of course review comments on any of these texts are<br>
    always welcome.<br>
    <br>
    - Stewart<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------050307060400090100090803--