Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
" 徐小虎(义先) " <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com> Thu, 17 May 2018 06:48 UTC
Return-Path: <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D41127873; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alibaba-inc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id De5wS7Q_K3MF; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out0-155.mail.aliyun.com (out0-155.mail.aliyun.com [140.205.0.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BF1F127867; Wed, 16 May 2018 23:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alibaba-inc.com; s=default; t=1526539694; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=5XvmN/uRULXXjbULXTGQA0sCLhLsaXaLqJ/7p0h+YEM=; b=YLQYoETo+POLI5Li2rkEVYY+Fgny0KsJyFfFw8XnQHLjbAW8nx3xyhUoLmpBg/nM5QSirw8sWZ7iT9lndjOs8Lgp1I0wBaIckVlgyAmUHQKho104sRgUSqWu4iIdIdCUOx5avSRqh6ZdJNlCI2XGlhoOTPuEc5o0U0QpkwiVxEA=
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS; BC=-1|-1; BR=01201311R141e4; CH=green; FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e01e01546; MF=xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com; NM=1; PH=DW; RN=3; SR=0; TI=W4_5259433_v5ForWebDing_0A932696_1526539607307_o7001c55h;
Received: from WS-web (xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com[W4_5259433_v5ForWebDing_0A932696_1526539607307_o7001c55h]) by e01l07392.eu6 at Thu, 17 May 2018 14:48:10 +0800
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:48:10 +0800
From: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
To: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, sfc <sfc@ietf.org>
Reply-To: "徐小虎(义先)" <xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
Message-ID: <3462afcc-ea31-4e37-b48d-5e290d4ad930.xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com>
X-Mailer: [Alimail-Mailagent][W4_5259433][v5ForWebDing][Chrome]
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU1Eugjurpp+=zXJrz3UZBOpCUcJkJS6ig1UKwAni+rKGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1Eugjurpp+=zXJrz3UZBOpCUcJkJS6ig1UKwAni+rKGg@mail.gmail.com>
x-aliyun-mail-creator: W4_5259433_v5ForWebDing_M3LTW96aWxsYS81LjAgKE1hY2ludG9zaDsgSW50ZWwgTWFjIE9TIFggMTBfMTJfNikgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNTM3LjM2IChLSFRNTCwgbGlrZSBHZWNrbykgQ2hyb21lLzY2LjAuMzM1OS4xMzkgU2FmYXJpLzUzNy4zNg==vN
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=ALIBOUNDARY_34033_4eb20940_5afd25aa_59f1b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/mfEUixqTiCSCTtwDGg6xGhDuDF4>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 06:48:23 -0000
Hi Andy, Thanks a lot for your objective and fair comments. Best regards,Xiaohu ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>Send Time:2018年5月7日(星期一) 19:05To:mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; sfc <sfc@ietf.org>Subject:[mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00 The following URL is a diff between draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-04 and draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05, when section 6 was updated to change Segment Routing to “Label Stacking”. (Note that the only changes from draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05 to draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00 were the name and date change). https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrel-mpls-sfc-05.txt If you examine the changes to section 6, it’s pretty clear (at least to me) that the changes are really just cosmetic in nature, such as removing a reference to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing and changing a few terms here and there. That, combined with the fact that the MPLS WG had never discussed “Label Stacking” in a draft (never mind an RFC) prior to the introduction of Segment Routing leaves me to conclude that section 6 really does need to be removed in order to comply with the WG concerns about -04 and earlier revisions of draft-farrel. Thanks,Andy
- [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” in dr… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… 徐小虎(义先)
- [mpls] 答复: Segment Routing vs. “Label Stacking” i… Lizhenbin