Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I like that.

Store it up as another last call comment.

A
(PS, thanks for keeping these comments public to the MPLS WG. That really helps)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 20 August 2012 19:38
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label
> 
> While we're on the subject, I'd like to make another change -- a
clarification.
> 
> section 4.3:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    If a transit LSR recognizes the ELI, it MAY choose to load balance
>    solely on the following label (the EL); otherwise, it SHOULD use as
>    much of the whole label stack as feasible as keys for the load
>    balancing function, with the exception that reserved labels MUST NOT
>    be used.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    If a transit LSR recognizes the ELI, it MAY choose to load balance
>    solely on the following label (the EL); otherwise, it SHOULD use as
>    much of the whole label stack as feasible as keys for the load
>    balancing function.  In any case, reserved labels MUST NOT be used
>    as keys for the load balancing function.
> 
> Kireeti.
> 
> PS: there, you see, I do (sometimes) use MUST/MUST NOT.