Re: [Tsvwg] Re: AD review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

I think this is important to include, however obvious it is to some

At 09:04 AM 9/12/2007, Bruce Davie wrote:
>Lars,
>  Thanks for the comments. Before I respond to them, I wanted to
>mention one change that Bob and I want to make in the next revision
>in addition to the changes you request. It is just a small point of
>clarification, but we don't want to surprise anyone. The proposed new
>text, which would appear at the end of Section 6, is included below:
>
>We note that in a network where L-LSPs are used, ECN marking SHOULD
>NOT cause packets from the same microflow but with different ECN
>markings to be sent on different LSPs. As discussed in [RFC3270],
>packets of a single microflow should always travel on the same LSP to
>avoid possible misordering. Thus, ECN marking of packets on L-LSPs
>SHOULD only affect the EXP value of the packets.
>
>-----
>Now to your comments
>
>On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls, and think it is ready to move
>>to IETF last call, modulo a resolution to some small issues:
>>
>>(1) Section 8.3 doesn't really discuss an "example use", which is
>>what the title of Section 8 is. Suggest to cut it or move the
>>content elsewhere.
>
>In my mind, section 8.3 is an example of how you can use ECN in MPLS
>networks. I think the problem here is that we didn't say enough to
>make that apparent. At the same time, I don't really see any harm in
>dropping the section.
>
>>
>>(2) I'd make sense to swap Sections 8 and 9, i.e., discuss
>>deployment considerations before example uses.
>
>No problem.
>
>>
>>(3) My recollection was that there was an agreement to move the
>>discussion of how one would use this to support PCN to an appendix.
>>Some of this has happened, but Section 8.4 still exist in the main
>>body of the document, and is longer than all the other example
>>uses. I suggest to replace the content of Section 8.4 with a
>>pointer to the appendix, and move the PCN details there.
>
>We certainly moved all the protocol details around PCN support to an
>appendix as previously agreed. I have no problem moving most of this
>section to an appendix too.
>
>>
>>(4) Can the reference to [Briscoe] be made more concrete, i.e., can
>>it point at something that people can actually get at?
>
>Of course. The internet draft to which we were referring did not
>exist at the time of the last draft, but now it does: draft-briscoe- 
>tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-00.txt will be the new reference. However, RFC
>editor style is to remove the filename of the draft from the
>references again, so I think this will look pretty much the same upon
>publication.
>
>Bruce
>>Lars