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

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:loa@pi.nu] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:04 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky; George Swallow; Stewart Bryant
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
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:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *George 
> Swallow
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 10:57 AM
> *To:* Stewart Bryant
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@tools.ietf.org;
> mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
> *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 
> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>> 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 (mpls@ietf.org
>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>).
>
>     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
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>