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

Authors,

Again not giving a wg chair directive, merely my own personal advice.
This is still an individual draft.

IF you have author consensus to split the draft, go ahead and do so.

/Loa

On 2015-09-28 11:19, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think that there will be much work for the SFL to be done. Besides RFC6374 related work, the issues proposed here will be related with MP2P LSP such as LDP LSP and L3VPN LSP.
> So there may be extensions of LDP/BGP to be defined. In fact, we have ever proposed the drafts of L3VPN OAM for the purpose which should be enhanced according to the arch of
> SFL. As co-author I also support the split and will be glad to work on that.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
>
>
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Loa Andersson
> 发送时间: 2015年9月23日 17:17
> 收件人: Gregory Mirsky; stbryant@cisco.com; Andrew G. Malis
> 抄送: mpls@ietf.org; draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels@tools.ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [mpls] Should we split draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application
>
> Greg and Stewart,
>
> This is an individual document, if the co-authors have consensus on splitting the document, please go ahead and do so.
>
> My personal opinion is that extracting the architecture is fine as long as we will have two viable documents.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2015-09-21 20:00, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I agree with Stewart that extracting architectural part of the
>> synonymous labels discussion would improve the clarity and may add new
>> use cases in addition to RFC 6374. As co-author I support the split
>> and will be glad to work on that.
>>
>>                   Regards,
>>
>>                                   Greg
>>
>> *From:*mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Stewart
>> Bryant
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 2:33 AM
>> *To:* Andrew G. Malis; Loa Andersson
>> *Cc:* mpls@ietf.org;
>> draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels@tools.ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Should we split
>> draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels into arch and application
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Worrying about the work needed to process the drafts (which will be
>> quite small) is putting the cart before the horse.
>>
>> What is important is clarity of ideas and clarity of understanding by
>> the reader. The IETF is somewhat unique in it's production of micro
>> specs that provide separation of ideas and this has served us well
>> over the years.
>>
>> Whilst the draft started out as an RFC6374 solution, the technology
>> proposed has a more universal application.
>>
>> It therefore makes sense to me to produce a description of base
>> technology uncluttered by a detailed solution to an application, and a
>> separate text on the application.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/09/2015 17:28, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>
>>      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
>>      <mailto: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 <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      mpls mailing list
>>      mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>