[mpls] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deborah,

Please see inline.

> I’d suggest it would be more helpful if this sentence troubling Eric would clarify operationally why MNA will be a better solution (to provide a hint to vendors/operators of a new capability under development) and not simply say MNA can do the same thing.  And not say there is agreement on Historic when no one knows what will be decided.


We are trying to make that decision now. We would like to not have to have the same round of discussions again in the future.  This is the compromise between the authors and the WG. It respects the existing implementors and implementations who very much would like to see their work published as a Proposed Standard now and leaves the door open for the subsequent MNA approach to supersede it without unnecessary recapitulation.


> Suggest:
> can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation, it is agreed .will be made Historic/s/can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation and, in addition, MNA will provide a broader use case applicability. The MNA encapsulation will provide an alternative, more advanced solution, when published as an RFC.
> [XM]>>> The text you suggested looks good to me. As an editor of this document, I'll let the ADs and MPLS WG chairs to comment before using your text in the next revision. 


I’m not sure I can precisely follow the notation that you’ve used, but I understand your intent and have no issue with it.  

Tony
MPLS co-chair
Document shepherd