The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) label stack entry: "EXP" field renamed to "Traffic Class" field ' <draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-08.txt Technical Summary The early Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) documents defined the format of the MPLS Label Stack. This includes a three bit field called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use". Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Service" (CoS) field, it was not named the CoS field by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents define its usage as a CoS field. To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has become important to rename this field. This document changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC field".) In doing so it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP field. Working Group Summary Solid consensus (see PROTO writeup by George Swallow). Document Quality The RFCs that this document references and updates are widely implemented and deployed, and use the three bit "EXP" field as a class of service field. Thus the change of name for the field specified in this draft is consistent with widely deployed protocols and equipment (and consistent with the original intended use of this field). There are four informational RFCs (RFC 3272, RFC 3469, RFC 3564 and RFC 3985) that are listed as normative references. This is because this document makes manadatory changes to these RFCs (by changing the name of one field used by these RFCs). These downrefs were mentioned in the IETF last call. Personnel George Swallow is the document shepherd for this document. Ross Callon is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note Please update Section 2.2 (entitled "RFC 3270"), paragraph 7 (immediately after bullet "a." as follows: OLD The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to the TC field. NEW The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field now refer to the TC field. Please update the same section, approximately paragraph 11 (the first paragraph of the updated section 1.2 of RFC3270) as follows: OLD The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to the TC field. However, we retain the acronym E-LSP (Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP) as the acronym is in widespread use. NEW The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field now refer to the TC field. However, we retain the acronym E-LSP (Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP) as the acronym is in widespread use. Section 2.3 (entitled "RFC 5129"), please update the third paragraph as follows: OLD The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 5129 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to the TC field. NEW The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all references in RFC 3270 to EXP field now refer to the TC field. Please update the first paragraph in section 2.4 as follows: OLD There are several places in the RFCs that has explicitly updated by this document that reference the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits" and "EXP". In all those instances the references SHOULD be taken to reference the TC field. NEW There are several places in the RFCs that are explicitly updated by this document that reference the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits" and "EXP". In all those instances the references now reference the TC field. Please update the following paragraph (second paragraph of section 2.4), last sentence, as follows: OLD For all RFCs, including but not limited to those mentioned in this paragraph, such references SHOULD be taken to reference the TC field. NEW For all RFCs, including but not limited to those mentioned in this paragraph, such references now reference the TC field. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
