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

[Scott Brim <swb at employees.org>]

On 5/6/08 5:16 AM, Francois Le Faucheur IMAP allegedly wrote:
> 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

"CoS" also seems inadequate to me because (1) it's already been heavily 
used to mean less than we need to mean here, so it will confuse readers, 
and (2) "service" implies something about end-to-end service which is 
more than we want to mean.

So now I'm obligated to suggest an alternative :-).  To include ECN and 
PHB/PSC treatments, perhaps the name could be "Congestion Handling 
Indication", or simply "Per-Hop Treatment Indication"?

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