RFC Editor (Rebecca), authors, Working Group, Document Shepherd here.
This document seemed to stagnate over the discussion of a couple of minor editorial points. So I have been chatting with Greg and Loa, and we have agreed some changes that seem to address the concerns. I have based these changes on the text at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt Section 1.2 OLD MPLS Payload: All data after the label stack and the optional Post- Stack header. NEW MPLS Payload: All data after the label stack and any optional PSHs. It is possible that more than one type of PSH may be present in a packet, and some PSH specifications might allow multiple PSHs of the same type. The presence rules for multiple PSHs are a matter for the documents that define those PSHs, e.g., in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr]. END Section 1.2 OLD Post-Stack Header (PSH): A field containing information that may be of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) or transit LSRs. Examples include a control word [RFC4385] [RFC8964] or an associated channel header [RFC4385] [RFC5586] [RFC9546]. A parser needs to be able to determine where the PSH ends in order to find the embedded packet. NEW Post-Stack Header (PSH): A field containing information that may be of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) or transit LSRs. Examples include a control word [RFC4385] [RFC8964] or an associated channel header [RFC4385] [RFC5586] [RFC9546]. END I hope with these two changes, all of the authors can confirm their AUTH48 proposal. Regards, Adrian -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
