Re: [mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01

Hi Andy,

Yes, I agree my comment wasn't complete.  Perhaps this is better:
"using MPLS as a replacement for NSH (with some loss of functionality) is
described elsewhere [x]."

Also for the second comment, this may be better.

"as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label becomes

the top label in the stack."

Thanks,
Anoop

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anoop,
>
> Thanks, I'll discuss these suggestions with my co-authors. Also, now that
> we've requested WG LC, Loa may want to treat this as a last call comment.
>
> Your first comment isn't quite correct, since draft-ietf-mpls-sfc only
> replaces some of the functions of the NSH. For example, there's no
> packet-by-packet metadata.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:57 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be useful for this document to reference
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfc
>> in the introduction to say that "using MPLS to replace the function of
>> NSH is described elsewhere [x]".
>>
>> I think the following:
>> >>>
>>
>> the SFF Label will rise to the top of the label stack before
>> the packet is forwarded to another node and before the packet
>> is dispatched to a higher layer.
>>
>> >>>
>> would be better worded as:
>>
>> "as a part of normal processing, the SFF Label will become
>>
>> the top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded
>>
>> to another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher layer."
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anoop
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>