Folks,
Thank you for permitting me to present draft-ietf-mpls-icmp to the
Internet Area. From your comments, I gather that we have three distinct
questions before us:
The first is a syntactic question. That is, "Do we want to define a
syntax that allows us to extend ICMP messages?" This syntax
must allow us to extend any ICMP message, including those that currently
end in a variable length field that lacks a length attribute.
The second question is architectural. In the future, do we want to
extend ICMP so that it will contain information that might be useful for
debugging, even if that information is not strictly IP information
(i.e., even if it constitutes a small layer violation).
The third question is specific to draft-ietf-mpls-icmp. That is, do we
want to extend ICMP to include MPLS information.
The three questions are somewhat, but not entirely orthogonal to one
another. Therefore, there are 2**3 possible responses to these questions
with some combinations making more sense than others.
Also, there is a question to how we should proceed. Those who answer
"no" to all of the questions above suggest that the draft should be
scrapped. However, those who answer "yes" to questions 1 or 3 might
suggest either of the following:
- split the draft into two parts. The first part addresses question #1,
while the second addresses question #2
- publish the draft as a BCP or an informational RFC.
Comments?
Ron
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
