Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

[Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,
I agree with the way you plan to address my comment #2.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Sri [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:59 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc: George Swallow; Stewart Bryant; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your comments. Pls see inline.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi George, et. al,
I’ve found several occurrences, three actually, of SHOULD being used in Section 4.

And I agree with Stewart that application of <ELI, EL> is the local decision and, at most, this work can be published as Informational.

Sri> As per my response to Loa's suggestion, the draft will be changed to informational with all the SHOULDs retained.

One comment, suggestion:

•         the sample algorithm in Section 4 suggests that the same <ELI,EL> tuple been used multiple times whereas it may be advantageous to generalize and point that the different entropy label value may be used by referring to the tuple as <ELI, ELn>

Sri> We had shown that ELs may be different in the example in an earlier version of the draft. Instead of referring to ELn, I would suggest that a second sentence be added in the third para in sec 4 as follows "The ELs among multiple <ELI, EL> pairs inserted in the stack may be same or different".


Regards,
        Greg



Thanks
Sri

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of George Swallow
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Stewart Bryant
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

Stewart -

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I support this becoming a WG doc and thereby comming under WG
control.

The document is a WG doc.   We are now in WG last call.

However I am not sure about the dismissal of the option to reuse
the ELI+EL. This clutters the stack less than the proposed option.

Also I wonder why this is standards track?

A reasonable question, particularly since there are no MUSTs, SHALLs or REQUIREDs.  Will discuss with my Co-Chairs and ADs.

Surely any equipment that understands the ELI can do this and thus this is just an informal description of the problem and a solution.

Stewart


On 23/04/2016 08:53, Loa Andersson wrote:
Working Group,

This is to initiate a two week working group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label.

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).

There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

All the authors and contributors (with one exception) have stated on
the working group mailing list that they are not aware of any other
IPRs that relates to this draft.

This working group last call ends May 12, 2016.


/Loa
for the MPLS wg chairs