RE: [Tsvwg] Making draft-davie-ecn-mpls a TSVWG item

[<[e-mail]>]

Dimitri,

> discussion was led on the list mid november - no real 
> conclusion or action where derived from the concerns 
> expressed at that time 

thanks for pointing out that this draft was also discussed elsewhere!

As for your specific points:

> > 1. CN marking in the EXP bits of the MPLS header falls imho under
the 
> > MPLS change process that states for an optional problem statement
and 
> > a mandatory prior requirements statement I-D to commit for any 
> > specific change or extension to MPLS
> >
> > see section 2.1.1 and 4.2 of
> >
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-06
.txt>

The process described in that document isn't official procedure yet, and
has raised significant concern in parts of the IESG. IMO it is unlikely
to proceed without major changes. Hence, it's questionable that we
should apply it here and now.

> [dp] the same section 7 mentions
> 
> "[RFC3168] does not give any reasons against conveying CE information
>  from the inner header to the outer in the "full functionality" mode."
> 
> nor the other way around - which leaves the point open for ECN itself
> -> the issue i am raising is that in absence of evidence current the 
> processing should be left per RFC3168 and not inline with the expected
> PCN needs (even if it does not affect the former)

I'm not quite sure I understand your point - are you saying that the
benefits of ECN for MPLS are unclear?

Thanks,
Lars
-- 
NEW EMAIL: [e-mail]
NEW MOBILE: [phone]
NEW JABBER: [e-mail]