Eric, That’s ok. As I said, to me it is more important to close on this asap. I would be interested to know what that bit is used for ;-) but.. other than that, I fully support this document.
Thank you. Jorge On 9/29/15, 7:04 AM, "BESS on behalf of Eric C Rosen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Jorge, > >Sorry about the delay getting back to you; hopefully we can bring this >document to WGLC relatively sonn. > >> Although I was still leaning towards a registry per tunnel-type or at >> least per SAFI (since it would save the use of a new EC) I think at this >> moment it is even more important to close on this as soon as possible to >> avoid issues. > >Slide 6 of the presentation I gave at the Dallas IETF provides some >reasons for not setting up a different registry per tunnel-type or SAFI. >> >> My only other comment is that it would seem 'cleaner' to use the most >> significant bit to indicate the existence of the EC instead of bit 1. If >> would be good to confirm that the rumor about the use of bit 0 is an >> existing implementation, in which case I agree it can’t be used. > >I did hear the "rumor" from a reliable source ;-) > >> If that >> is the case, it would be good if the relevant people document that >> somewhere. > >Indeed it would. But hopefully, once we set up the registry, similar >undocumented uses of the flag bits will be less likely to happen. > >Eric > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
