[mpls] 答复: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2014年1月26日 4:35
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS
> in UDP) to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> In message
> <[e-mail].
> huawei.com>
> Xuxiaohu writes:
> > >
> > > I am not against the bulk of RFC6936. But unlike '36,
> > > RFC6935 is very much written for the benefit of tunnelers.
> > >
> > > RFC6935 and 36 can be read to give conflicting advice (35 - zero!
> > > 36 - um, that leads to these subtle and nuanced prroblems, so maybe
> > > not), so just referring to them and leaving the implementer without
> > > clear direction is not sufficient imo.
> >
> > If so, wouldn't it be better to solve such confliction and confusion
> > caused by 6935 and 6936 by updating them? Since these two drafts are
> > originated from the TSV WG, it should represent the rogue WG consensus
> > instead of making confusion to others.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu
> 
> 
> I believe you meant "rough" but perhaps "rogue" works too.  :-)

Sorry for that typo error. I meant "rough".

Best regards,
Xiaohu


> Curtis