IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming of EXP field)

"Shahram Davari" <davari@rogers.com> Tue, 19 August 2008 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC51D28C183; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32FD28C163 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.908, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCAZWd0DSuZ9 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp104.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp104.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ACB928C165 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28818 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2008 14:07:27 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=Jqm51ZLkSFJHA7FZ+NuYo65oD0GAbbKC+YIo6NJ7VQ+pkew0Q+NGLs6EokGAZsg6UChDVBJkh2SX7AHiaMDY/h+tV8UPEGW8K9jpgYiCqx4DyxmSjDClGp8KFQxw6t0TyZPEMrJW5F0jwpL91E8mclqzbhsr0BbsZXUF4hXFFrw= ;
Received: from unknown (HELO ShahramPC) (davari@rogers.com@99.238.119.231 with login) by smtp104.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2008 14:07:26 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: O9Zy4IEVM1lqEqhoVj7.oTNmArXewfs7fS2IcnFVEXm3E3WGArBcRvA2GuK2s0qEEg--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: Shahram Davari <davari@rogers.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808182251490.12843@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C4CF680B.6166%swallow@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4CF680B.6166%swallow@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:07:25 -0400
Message-ID: <00c801c90204$e8a45ba0$b9ed12e0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AckBdNQksBh642KQSO2t84SGl7SPdAACEkYKACHUHfA=
Content-Language: en-ca
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:13:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming of EXP field)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1317876895=="
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org

I don't really care about the name. But just wanted to mention that CoS is a
bit misleading, because for example in L-LSP, the EXP bits are used to
indicate the drop precedence and not Class of Service. Even in E-LSP the EXP
bits indicate a combination of CoS and drop precedence. My suggestion would
be DS filed for (Diffserv).
 
-Shahram
 
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
George Swallow
Sent: August-18-08 5:55 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion (was Re: Poll on renaming of EXP field)
 
Public of course!


On 8/18/08 4:55 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, George Swallow wrote:

> 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.

I hope you meant discussion to be public, so here goes.

Personally I like the term "TOS" (from the IP field) better than CoS,
because it's hard to differentiate the terms QoS and CoS in spoken english
(not that I am a native speaker, but anyway). "Diffserv" is also a better
alternative than CoS, if TOS seems out of the question for some reason.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email