Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5960 (2533)

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:12 AM, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@cisco.com>  
wrote:

>  Hi Huub,
>
> On 08/10/2010 09:42, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
>> Hello Stweard,
>>
>> You replied:
>>
>>> Speaking as an author, my view is that the original text is  
>>> correct, and
>>> the correction is not needed.
>>
>> As an author you are are an expert in this topic.
>> However, for the less experienced you knowledge, i.e.:
> The preamble was to alert the reader that I was speaking as an
> individual contributor, and not as an AD. I.e. this is a technical
> comment and not a management comment.
>
>>
>>> It's a fundamental of the IP protocol suite (which includes MPLS)
>>> that the parser knows what protocol to expect from the previous
>>> header or if there is no previous header from an identifier in
>>> the lower layer.
>>
>> may not be that obvious.
>>
>> So adding this explanation or the text proposed by Ben:
>>
>>> If a section layer does not support multiplexing then it has
>>> an implicit means of identifying the payload by the interface
>>> over which the payload arrived.
>
> Well there are a couple of problems with this. Firstly, other than in
> some implementations, a tunnel (i.e. an LSP) is not really an  
> interface.
> Secondly if the packet arrives on a data-link, we do require the the
> type indicator.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls