[mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 07 May 2018 11:05 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CDB126BFD; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jpbLhD7VZr-X; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 7DCEE126B6E; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p62-v6so24684590oie.10; Mon, 07 May 2018 04:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jMpLvPQTJljNg3Gh0mZjtTmKBLGyXRFWNVWVdDbwoW4=; b=i9uCqYVNvZJmOqeon+7b1cN7pXOGLHgMRcYG2JMYOQiNHnPsJqFzLpbpzdkD0Gzayg uUs+TtlQ8OBDLvEWkLw1+8H0x8mH4n05ykZgG1aMmcKRwTCZm27hyhY5wBr1Us0fmc01 OxWT1SMYbs1z4hrGDjM/LRavb5gnPHZHJamztEv0/dosCI4e+NPGZOQc7tNgSlATK8u3 Fnz8/IZLcxbQfw1rp3MaZJY/Vqr6gUVkui5me3G5Emf4c5pO0mghDFQtIciOARWx9B9V bibYxo+WM0SzkEymSVZ6gpGeOFPLrexpifp27aAB1FnOl2c6cMXNG24xnniyqNtGBpTq +XIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jMpLvPQTJljNg3Gh0mZjtTmKBLGyXRFWNVWVdDbwoW4=; b=kSY6S8Irzhj0f59JUNaWatgMxUELhJ0920xR6pGCzj3pAgPqNs0CVPcVK3RjaOWPuW qYyCB5XVoakEhpGf+ao1+n0wdZyq0Zezs+tYbFfKIy7MGGXAzHY8MHH/RP1llHLd9gUY n7uJb0dJZoTL7exTf6E3/HFH1Q8Kxb5BP9scOwMaF89m1k1PcBFeggzW8Swks6Zy1mFn EhA/pJiwgjRpDHjZ0H08lk+TF9mjIOoH1k7ARRvI1+SwJSVjgFEyuU6jxPU6AWcIAX7k C9EWLBRFiNkOUCVX4Ou54KNh/1c+4SrOZCi+xvF+1frXMviI0uVg9KZOC6fT7iB8rcjc ZINA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tACOw6PW91iJilTpovUoZpDvsuF3zq3AnpP2N+mwmybiFayWB5c VRHDrZxN5FZLDYPayLf0XI/GkP6GqTBLHWhayKPDDA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrjKj0nGxIIyS/ae8t4NzaCudNYPWKmI2cvNgK703GFqXRDMmLslTfrDbhdigpK1Mxpx2O5u3kToUgxKZffCFs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c314:: with SMTP id t20-v6mr23915335oif.15.1525691124550; Mon, 07 May 2018 04:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:1f27:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2018 04:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 08:05:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1Eugjurpp+=zXJrz3UZBOpCUcJkJS6ig1UKwAni+rKGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000084101a056b9ba5c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/YtOqmcIL21URz6704NOJK7FNPKQ>
Subject: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 07 May 2018 11:05:27 -0000
The following URL is a diff between draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-04 and draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05, when section 6 was updated to change Segment Routing to “Label Stacking”. (Note that the only changes from draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 to draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00 were the name and date change). https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt If you examine the changes to section 6, it’s pretty clear (at least to me) that the changes are really just cosmetic in nature, such as removing a reference to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing and changing a few terms here and there. That, combined with the fact that the MPLS WG had never discussed “Label Stacking” in a draft (never mind an RFC) prior to the introduction of Segment Routing leaves me to conclude that section 6 really does need to be removed in order to comply with the WG concerns about -04 and earlier revisions of draft-farrel. Thanks, Andy
- [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in dr… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… 徐小虎(义先)
- [mpls] 答复: Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Lizhenbin