Re: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of EXPfield)

Hi all,
       Seems to me that the Eric proposal is quite good, probably is the easiest way to solve this issue.

Just my two cents

BR

D


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eric Gray
> Sent: martedì 19 agosto 2008 16.42
> To: George Swallow; Loa Andersson
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Question for clarification (was RE: Poll on renaming of
> EXPfield)
> 
> George/Loa,
> 
> 	I am concerned that we may be signing ourselves up for
> a slew of RFC revisions/replacements in making this name
> change.
> 
> 	Just to make things clearer - is it the intention that
> we're creating a single RFC that explains the change and will
> then be listed as "updating" all RFCs that currently use the
> term "EXP", or are we in fact signing up to replace a number
> of RFCs?
> 
> 	It's one thing to decide that the field name "CoS" is
> not worse than the name "EXP"; it is quite another thing to
> sign up for churning a number of RFCs to replace a term -
> because it is "nor worse than" the existing term.
> 
> 	Another thing to consider is that - even if we plan
> only to list this new RFC as "updating" all of the RFCs that
> currently refer to the field name "EXP" - we may be setting
> a record for the number of RFCs "updated" by a single new
> RFC.  Given the number of people who still refer to RFC 2547
> VPNs, it is not all that clear what difference an RFC that
> proposes to change a field name from "EXP bits" to "CoS bits"
> will really have.  However, if we don't even list this RFC as
> "updating" these other RFCs, then it is very likely that the
> new RFC will have even less impact on usage (possibly having
> no effect what-so-ever over the long run) - since a person
> reading any of these existing RFCs will have no particular
> reason to know about this new one.
> 
> 	In my opinion, a better use of everybody's time would
> be to write an RFC that simply explains the way the IETF's
> use of the term "Experimental" actually works (i.e. - you
> do not get to pick experimental values, or define symantic
> meanings for a set of values, for use in the Internet scope
> without obtaining a specific value (or values) from a number
> space manager, such as IANA).  Such a thing would be quite a
> reasonable thing to do as a simple process BCP.
> 
> --
> Eric Gray
> Principal Engineer
> Ericsson
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of George Swallow
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:24 PM
> > To: mpls@ietf.org
> > Subject: [mpls] Poll on renaming of EXP field
> >
> > During the last call on "EXP field" renamed to  "CoS Field"
> > draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt, there were comments on
> > alternatives to the name COS.
> >
> > This message initiates a two week poll on whether the name COS
> > is good enough, or if some other name is needed.  The poll closes
> > 23:59 Sept 1 GMT.
> >
> > Please answer with a simple yes or no.  You may send any
> > additional comment
> > in a separate message (with a different subject line).
> >
> > ...George
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls