IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sat, 19 September 2015 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E121B2E32 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rctRtyz1a1hh for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 749871B2E2F for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3D2E18013B2; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:07:50 +0200 (CEST)
To: stbryant@cisco.com, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <55FD8852.7040307@pi.nu>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:07:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/NHBLEkFnovvxH1dKzxMqGwoelS8>
Cc: draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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
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: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:07:54 -0000

Working Group,

I have not seen any responses to this mail from Stewart! Take a look
and see if you have an opinion.

/Loa

On 2015-08-17 17:50, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email