On 23/08/2020 21:47, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Tom,
You're right (a condition that must be scarily familiar for you).
Probably...
OLD
o Collectively, the two ranges are known as Special Purpose Labels
(SPL).
o The special purpose labels from the lower range will be called
Base Special Purpose Labels (bSPL).
o The special purpose labels from the higher range will be called
Extended Special Purpose Labels (eSPL).
NEW
o Collectively, the two ranges (0-15, and 16-1048575) are known
as Special Purpose Labels (SPL).
o The special purpose labels from the lower range (0-15) will be
called Base Special Purpose Labels (bSPL).
o The special purpose labels from the higher range (16-1048575)
will be called Extended Special Purpose Labels (eSPL). The
reserved values 0-15 from the 'Extended Special-Purpose MPLS
Label Values' registry do not need a name as they can never be
used.
END
Yes, clearer.
Perhaps
" The
reserved values 0-15 from the 'Extended Special-Purpose MPLS
Label Values' registry do not need a name as they are not available
for allocation. "
to tie in with the wording of IANA. They SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used
but I can see some independent-minded organisation deciding that because
noone else will ever use them then they can and they will so I think
'can never be used' is not quite right. They can never be allocated so
we do not need an identifier for them, which is what I am wanting to
express.
I note that this is Informational and so RFC2119 language is best avoided.
Tom Petch
Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 19 August 2020 17:25
To: last-call@xxxxxxxx
Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@xxxxxxxx; db3546@xxxxxxx;
mpls-chairs@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt> (Special
Purpose Label terminology) to Informational RFC
I find this confusing.
It specifies two ranges 0-15 and 0-1048575 the latter being subdivided
into ranges 0-15 16-239 etc and then talks of the lower range and the
higher range; is the higher range 0-1048575 or 16-239 or 16-1048575 or ...?
Lesser and greater or first and second or smaller and larger .. I might
find unambiguous but reading this with an innocent eye, I find higher
ambiguous.
And in Security, 'It does not effect the forwarding ...' Well, no, it
would likely not affect it either:-)
Tom Petch
On 12/08/2020 19:48, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Special Purpose Label
terminology'
<draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-03.txt> as Informational RFC
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
