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

[George Swallow <swallow at cisco.com>]

Huub -

Generally the IETF does not respin an RFC to incorporate changes such as
these as the overhead of doing so is high given the approval process.
Instead, on the cover page of the RFCs affected by the change, a note is
made saying

Updated by RFCxxxx.

Where RFCxxxx would be the number given to this.

...George


On 5/7/08 5:32 AM, "Huub van Helvoort" <h.v.helvoort at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello George,
> 
> You 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.
> 
> I support this, especially regarding the last paragraph.
> 
> Will RFCs that use these bits also be updated to refer to this
> definition?
> 
> Cheers, Huub.

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