Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00

Hi Eric O, and all

Sorry for replying late.
As my opinion, The first bullet below is Yes (to be swapped). The reason is in LS
(liaison/1234) where the definition of FS is introduced (3.2.29, ITU-T G.870)

And I would like to address the modification should be done within RFC 6378
(without specific updating RFC 5654 and RFC 4427).

Thanks, Yuji

(2013/04/17 21:16), Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote:
> This thread is for discussing draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00.  In brief, the draft proposes swapping the priorities between FS and SF-P (see section 4.3.2 of rfc6378).  This proposed swap has a long history, dating back to when PSC was an ID.  For some history, see
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1229/
> and
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1234/
>
> The questions that I think are relevant here are:
>
> - is it appropriate to make this priority swap?
>   - are there alternative approaches?
>   - what do we need to change?  rfc5654?  rfc4427?  
> - if we don't make the change, does this expose implementation to problems?
> - if we do make the change, how do we go about it?
>
> but of course any and all discussion is welcome.
>
> As with the other threads I'm going to leave my two cents out of this introductory email but I'll chime in when discussion starts.
>
>
>
>
>
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>