Pasi,
Thanks for this.
1/ Not so sure about RFC4301 not being normative. I think normative means
"this spec /could/ have a dependency on the referred to aspect of RFC4301",
which is true...
If the aspect of RFC4301 that we are referring to (copy ECN field on
encapsulate) was changed, e.g. for some security reason, we would have to
seriously consider changing our recommendation to mirror such a change to
IPSec into ECN-MPLS.
This is not an impossibility either, because the choice made in RFC4301 was
on a balance between two possible forms of harm - missing upstream
congestion information and creating a covert channel.
So I think normative is correct in this case, and it certainly does no harm.
2/ Certainly "(equal cost multi-path - ECMP)" would be better.
Bob
At 12:10 18/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-mpls-02
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2007-10-18
IETF LC End Date: 2007-10-19
IESG Telechat date: (not known yet)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Comments:
I'm not an expert in MPLS or PCN, but even then, the draft was
surprisingly understandable (good writing, folks!).
Couple of minor suggestions:
- RFC 4301 should probably be informative rather than normative
reference
- The acronym "ECMP" should be expanded on first use
Best regards,
Pasi
____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK. +44 1473 645196
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
