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

[Sri <[e-mail]>]

A response to an earlier email from Greg, addresses all comments in this
email.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Gregory Mirsky <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> Hi Loa,
> if the WG decides to publish the document, then the Informational is the
> right track.
>
> Appreciate authors to consider my comment on generalizing references to an
> Entropy Label in the tuple as <ELI, ELn>.
>
>         Regards,
>                 Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:04 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; George Swallow; Stewart Bryant
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
>
> Greg,
>
> (talking about the SHOULDs in Section 4 only)
>
> I think what George (and Stewart) says is that since the document does not
> use any MUST, SHALL or REQUIRED, it makes sense to publish it as an
> Informational RFC.
>
> However, it does not work to turn that argument around and say that an
> Informational RFC can't use the normative language, it was doen for example
> in RFC 7412.
>
> I think we should change it to Informational, but there is no need to do
> anything to the SHOULDs in section 4.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2016-04-26 03:19, Gregory Mirsky 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.
> >
> > 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>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >          Greg
> >
> > *From:*mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *George
> > Swallow
> > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 10:57 AM
> > *To:* Stewart Bryant
> > *Cc:* [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>