Re: [PWE3] Mandatory Control Word

I do kind of agree with Stuart's assessment, AD or not... :-)

IMHO,
/himanshu

-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:42 PM
To: stbryant@cisco.com
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Mandatory Control Word

	Is this your personal opinion speaking as a vendor with lots of
said equipment, or as an AD?

	--Tom

> 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   such time, if ever, RFC4447 is superceded and the support for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
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3