Re: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-encaps (MPLS Multicast Encapsulations) to Proposed Standard

[Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Eric Rosen wrote:
> The new standard is not interoperable with  the old, but we are not aware of
> any MPLS multicast deployments that  would be impacted.  I'll add a sentence
> or two about this.

Sounds good.  Is it feasible to consider the failure modes of a 
non-upgraded implementation neighboring an upgraded implementation? 
It seems possible (even likely) that non-upgraded implementations 
exist even if those would not be widely deployed.

>> Section 6 gives instructions how to handle unicast and multicast
>> destination address.  It does not describe how to handle the v4 255/8
>> broadcast address and it's debatable which category would apply if a
>> packet was sent to a regular broadcast address such as 192.0.2.255/24.
>> Should this be described for completeness or explicitly declared out
>> of scope?
>
> I would like to declare this to be out of scope.

I have no preference about this provided that the WG makes some 
decision on this.

>> Abstract is a bit long and has a typo:
>> s/The former "multicast codepoint"/The latter "multicast codepoint"
>
> That's not  a typo.  Instead of  "former multicast codepoint"  I could write
> "the codepoint  formerly known as  the multicast codepoint", but  that would
> make the abstract longer ;-)

How about "formerly defined multicast codepoint" if you're still 
concerned over this :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls