Thanks, Tom, for your feedback.
The two ranges (0-15, 16-1048575) have the unfortunate property of being contiguous and thus appearing related, but they are completely unrelated: one is for solo labels, the other is for the second label of a composite special purpose label. This unintended confluence may be aggravated by referring to the ranges are "lower" and "upper". I would get rid of these terms as follows:
NEW
o Collectively, the two (unrelated) ranges (0-15 and 16-1048575) are
known as Special Purpose Labels (SPL).
o Special purpose labels from the range 0-15 are
called Base Special Purpose Labels (bSPL).
o Special purpose labels from the range 16-1048575
are 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 are not available
for allocation.
END
(change of tense, as readers of the RFC will be seeing a fait accompli.)
Kireeti.
On 8/24/20, 03:02, "tom petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
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
>>
Juniper Business Use Only
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
