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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Sat, 19 September 2015 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
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 B6C8D1B6098 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YEkP0zcDzkbX for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20C61A00DC for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so97275768wic.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0F3xb7dzJBYHa8n9QljFeMYUhnGujJmm46wju8ijP64=; b=Wfr7SGSSemA1+b/TBH+4qLLKd3M8WeED97/dAUtYJhocMGXPkyqbt5U5HOgJFb0tmB Dvu04r1/+m4+I5XnD+ANriSpw/RdScCAdgJrI7Z7pzvJf2z2++cyO0lJquXDXvM1ziFc ijxneSvh3Vl9jkfcjtQT0zvZhKHfRs98j2E4p6dW0s+dhbtjsIhj7L4LInXojK3W6Edx +oGLcGQosGZfKtrGI5nPbKEq9TaGSUGvPczlOQhhGBQymRCXbRtJ4gi0ER23E80kq/sK 8ybuO5jB8xSor5rXNRcjBeLoiqa0ucuE+rjypXei0BWlNqO6Zw7h0T8T//syWEbUhr5H QWiw==
X-Received: by 10.194.71.39 with SMTP id r7mr15076437wju.120.1442680136378; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.9.212 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55FD8852.7040307@pi.nu>
References: <55D202B9.7040105@cisco.com> <55FD8852.7040307@pi.nu>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:28:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1+iOo_jaA7EOzGRQ6LqnMwLQwTNpJLfd8KVYofTJ9_yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd916a80db07205201c252c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/POuR1Gi_IJIOlgZ7JkRVvmk_jSE>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, 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 16:28:59 -0000

Loa,

If this was a big effort, I'd say go for the split, but it's a short draft
so I don't really see the need to double the overhead work for the WG,
chairs, ADs, and RFC Editor for what would be two very short drafts!

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>