Re: [mpls] Poll for draft on EXP Bits to WG draft

[Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <flefauch at cisco.com>]

Hello,

I am in favor of renaming the "EXP" field.

A couple of small points:
	* draft-andersson uses "EXP bits" and "EXP field" and also uses "CoS  
bits". For its Diffserv and ECN usage, this field is not structured  
in bits and instead used as a set of codepoints. So I recommend the  
document refers to the old field as the "EXP field" (and not "EXP  
bits") and define a new name as "CoS field" (and not the "CoS bits").  
RFC3270 and RFC5129 already use "EXP field".
	* draft-andersson proposes the name of "CoS" for the field. This  
captures reasonably well its Diffserv usage, but probably not so well  
its ECN usage. We should be able to come up with a name that captures  
both.

Francois


On 6 May 2008, at 00:08, George Swallow wrote:

> This begins a one week poll to determine support for making
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mpls/draft-andersson-mpls-expbits-def-00.txt
>
> a WG doc.
>
> As background, early in the MPLS work, these bits were always  
> intend for
> various uses as COS bits and other functions imbedded in the DS  
> byte of the
> IP header.  They were called experimental only in that, at the time  
> the
> encaps draft was written, there was no consensus on what to do with  
> the
> bits.
>
> The term experimental has lead various people and SDOs to expect more
> freedom in defining these bits than ever was intended.  This draft  
> seeks to
> correct that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls