Hi Fernando,
On 2010-09-18 06:01, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
>
> I've read the document and I'm happy with this rev. Some minor comments:
>
>
> * Section 4 says:
>
>> 2. A node that forwards a flow whose flow label value in arriving
>> packets is zero MAY set the flow label value. In that case, it
>> is RECOMMENDED that the forwarding node sets the flow label field
>> for a flow to a pseudo-random value.
>
> While I know this is the intention of the text, I'd clarify that if they
> rewrite a zero flow-label, they should do so consistently (i.e., all
> packets of a given flow are rewritten with the same FlowLabel value).
Yes, that is said very clearly in RFC 3697 and does not change.
>
>
> * Section 4 says:
>
>> 2. A network domain MUST NOT forward packets outside the domain
>> whose flow label values are other than zero or pseudo-random.
>
> Although I don't feel strongly about what I'm going to say, maybe s/MUST
> NOT/SHOULD NOT"? Strictly speaking, the FL is an optimization, and is
> not expected to cause interoperability issues....
Well, this is a matter of taste; it's really trying to say
"what happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas", as far as the
flow label goes. Let's see what the rest of the WG thinks.
Thanks!
Brian
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
