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

[Thomas Knoll <knoll at infotech.tu-chemnitz.de>]

Yes, this draft closes a gap and should become a working group document.

However, Loa, please have a look at the following points:
* missing abstract
* within 1. Introduction on page 3
    "... that was publshed as RFC 3032.C However ..."
* typo on page 6 within
    "... Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to: ..."
* presumably an error within the changed text
    "... endpoints are not CoS-capable, ..."  should certainly
    remain as
    "... endpoints are not ECN-capable, ..."
* typo on page 7 within
    "... onto the laabel stack. ..."

Regards,
Thomas

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Support
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Swallow" <swallow at cisco.com>
> To: <mpls at ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:08 PM
> Subject: [mpls] Poll for draft on EXP Bits to WG draft
>
>
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls