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

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
>