On 03/07/2018 21:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but exceptional circumstances.That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).The text with the MUST is "This document updates {{RFC4448}} to state that where both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used." This is conditional on both equipments supporting the feature. During WG discussion there was a lot of discussion on the degree to which we would mandate the migration to CW. The problem is that the use of the CW has hardware implications. At one stage we went so far as to recommend the the phasing out of equipment that could not support the CW, but we got strong pushback from a specialist part of the vendor community. This led us to a compromise position where we RECOMMEND the use of the CW, but only mandate that the CW be used if it is available in the equipment used at both ends of the PW.Fair enough, but the text doesn't quite say that. OLD: This document updates [RFC4448] to state that where both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used. NEW: This document updates [RFC4448] to state that both the ingress PE and the egress PE SHOULD support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, and that if supported the CW MUST be used.
Hi Brian That seems to be a useful change which reflects the intent of the document. Deborah, how do you want to deal with this, a re-spin or an editor's note. - Stewart _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
