Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,

In the last sentence of your proposed text, I think it would be clearer if we changed "In any case" to "Irregardless", which, according to Webster's Third New International, is a blend of 'irrespective' and 'regardless'.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:38 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label
> 
> While we're on the subject, I'd like to make another change -- a
> clarification.
> 
> section 4.3:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    If a transit LSR recognizes the ELI, it MAY choose to load balance
>    solely on the following label (the EL); otherwise, it SHOULD use as
>    much of the whole label stack as feasible as keys for the load
>    balancing function, with the exception that reserved labels MUST NOT
>    be used.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    If a transit LSR recognizes the ELI, it MAY choose to load balance
>    solely on the following label (the EL); otherwise, it SHOULD use as
>    much of the whole label stack as feasible as keys for the load
>    balancing function.  In any case, reserved labels MUST NOT be used
>    as keys for the load balancing function.
> 
> Kireeti.
> 
> PS: there, you see, I do (sometimes) use MUST/MUST NOT.