Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Hi Loa, I agree that changing it to informational while retaining the
SHOULDs is the right way. That should address similar comments by Stewart,
George, Greg and Carlos.

Thanks
Sri

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> (talking about the SHOULDs in Section 4 only)
>
> I think what George (and Stewart) says is that since the document does
> not use any MUST, SHALL or REQUIRED, it makes sense to publish it as an
> Informational RFC.
>
> However, it does not work to turn that argument around and say that an
> Informational RFC can't use the normative language, it was doen for
> example in RFC 7412.
>
> I think we should change it to Informational, but there is no need to
> do anything to the SHOULDs in section 4.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2016-04-26 03:19, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>
>> Hi George, et. al,
>>
>> I’ve found several occurrences, three actually, of SHOULD being used in
>> Section 4.
>>
>> And I agree with Stewart that application of <ELI, EL> is the local
>> decision and, at most, this work can be published as Informational.
>>
>> One comment, suggestion:
>>
>> ·the sample algorithm in Section 4 suggests that the same <ELI,EL> tuple
>> been used multiple times whereas it may be advantageous to generalize
>> and point that the different entropy label value may be used by
>> referring to the tuple as <ELI, ELn>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>          Greg
>>
>> *From:*mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *George Swallow
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 10:57 AM
>> *To:* Stewart Bryant
>> *Cc:* draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@tools.ietf.org;
>> mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] working group last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
>>
>> Stewart -
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Stewart Bryant
>> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I support this becoming a WG doc and thereby comming under WG
>> control.
>>
>> The document is a WG doc.   We are now in WG last call.
>>
>>     However I am not sure about the dismissal of the option to reuse
>>     the ELI+EL. This clutters the stack less than the proposed option.
>>
>>     Also I wonder why this is standards track?
>>
>> A reasonable question, particularly since there are no MUSTs, SHALLs or
>> REQUIREDs.  Will discuss with my Co-Chairs and ADs.
>>
>>     Surely any equipment that understands the ELI can do this and thus
>>     this is just an informal description of the problem and a solution.
>>
>>     Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 23/04/2016 08:53, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>
>>     Working Group,
>>
>>     This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
>>     draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label.
>>
>>     Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org
>>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).
>>
>>     There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>>
>>     All the authors and contributors (with one exception) have stated on
>>     the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any other
>>     IPRs that relates to this draft.
>>
>>     This working group last call ends May 12, 2016.
>>
>>
>>     /Loa
>>     for the MPLS wg chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>