Re: [PWE3] Mandatory Control Word

On 26/10/2010 18:41, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> 	Is this your personal opinion speaking as a vendor with lots of said equipment, or as an AD?
>
> 	--Tom
>
>
Assuming a Lynn Truss comma after "speaking".

The first and the last.

I personally think that we should not strand legacy systems. Widely 
deployed designs should only die at the end of their "natural" life.

As an AD I think that I have a duty of care to the Internet to make sure 
that we design our technology such that we ensure that we have migration 
paths rather than flag days.

Stewart

>> From
>>
>> draft-delregno-pwe3-mandatory-control-word/
>>
>> =======
>> 2.  Mandatory Control Word
>>
>>    The Control Word SHALL be mandatory for all PWE3 encapsulations.  The
>>    use of the sequence number remains OPTIONAL.
>>
>>    As a result of the Control Word being Mandatory, all implementations
>>    of the PWE3 encapsulations SHALL follow Section 6.1 of [RFC4447]
>>    wherein the "PWs MUST have c=1".  This requirement SHALL remain until
>>    such time, if ever, RFC4447 is superceded and the support for Control
>>    Word negotiation is removed as a result of this mandate.
>>
>> ======
>>
>> Given the reality of network deployments I do not see how we can
>> talk about removing the requirement to negotiate the CW in any
>> realistic time frame.
>>
>> It's fine to require the CW for all new PW types, and it's
>> probably OK to RECOMMEND operation with the CW, but it's
>> unrealistic to remove the option given the extent of the deployed
>> systems.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html