Hi all,
As I had pointed out before, this draft describes two MPLS-based SFC
approaches: one is how to encode the NSH info, more specifically, the SPI
and SI info by two MPLS labels, which is still a stateful SFC mechanism
just like NSH; another is how to leverage the MPLS-SR to realize a
statel
I absolutely cannot comment on this specific case, but the normal
and polite way to handle such a situation is a clear reference
to the older draft, and some text such as "A very similar proposal
was originally made by XXX in [reference]." That would apply both
to an earlier IETF contribution or to
Hi Brian,
I agree with what you mentioned, and particularities of this case are similar.
In this particular case, the problem can easily be solved by removing section 6
(which is covered by draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining).
This issue was raised during the WG adoption of the document. In the ema
