Thomas,
On 2011-01-18 06:19, Thomas Narten wrote:
> I admit to only recently jumping into this discussion and gettng
> caught up on the various drafts, but why are we doing this document?
>
>> Title : Update to the IPv6 flow label specification
>
> That is the title, but it doesn't update anything at all. It says this
> explicitly. It says:
>
> The intention of this document is to explain this in more detail and
> to propose changes to RFC 3697 intended to remove the uncertainties
> and encourage active usage of the flow label. It does not formally
> update RFC 3697.
>
> So we now publish as RFCs proposals to make changes to standards track
> documents, without actually making a change? This seems like it will
> confuse the community.
>
> Seems to me that if we do not formally clarify the preceding documents
> (if they need clarifying), we are wasting our time, and that there
> really isn't a problem here that needs fixing.
There's clearly a problem (20 unused bits and enormous confusion about
how they could be used). And clearly the goal is 3697bis. The reason for
this draft, as I believe we've discussed over some months, is to set the
scene for 3697bis. Indeed we have two choices:
1) agree on the substance of the intended updates and publish them as a
stake in the ground, then develop 3697bis.
2) agree on the substance of the intended updates (by means of the
present WGLC), and then proceed directly to develop 3697bis.
I understood that we'd agreed on 1) but the WG Chairs can tell me I'm wrong.
>
> And in looking at draft-ietf-6man-flow-ecmp-00.txt (also in WGLC),
> that document is a BCP and does not update any of the previous Flow
> Label documents.
Correct. It doesn't need to; it is additional practice and the intention
is to ensure that it's compatible both with 3697 and the eventual 3697bis.
(I agree with your comment on that draft that the phrasing on this
point is clumsy.)
> If we need to update the Flow Label specs, we should do so, and this
> document could be part of that or a rational for the changes. But
> absent any changes to the existing standards, I am not comfortable
> with publishing this document.
I would be too, if it was the end of the road, but we have an author
team all set to start on 3697bis once we have a clear consensus in
the WG about the changes to be made. Can you propose text that is
clearer than the following?
(In the Abstract)
This document describes and motivates proposed
changes to the specification in order to clarify it, making it clear
what types of usage are possible, and to introduce some additional
flexibility. It does not formally update RFC 3697.
(In the Introduction)
The intention of this document is to explain this in more detail and
to propose changes to RFC 3697 intended to remove the uncertainties
and encourage active usage of the flow label. It does not formally
update RFC 3697.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
