Can we wind back to my original points here which have not addressed.
Why are is the WG proposing a design that needs such complex parsing, against the ethos of MPLS, when a simpler design would be more universally applicable? Does the WG have any input to suggest that the design will survive a review by MPLS/PWE3 WG and then by IESG? - Stewart On 22/11/2011 09:12, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Speaking as an individual here, I really have a hard time understanding why it is necessary to have quite the egregious layer violation that this draft uses. The idea of having an LSP type that is dedicated to tracking the time of passage through the network is a good idea. However MPLS is completely geared to the concept that only the LSP endpoints know how to resolve the payload type. The function that you require could be achieved by including a shim that contains the time compensation information and adjust the payload on egress from the LSP. That would be rather more consistent with the MPLS architecture. I have not seen a request for review by the MPLS or PWE3 WGs and I would suggest that you request that sooner rather than later since it is inevitable that the draft will be sent there later in it's life, and if they do not subscribe to your mode of operation the draft is unlikely to progress. I would also suggest that you discuss the extent of layer violation with your AD to make sure he is confident that this draft will pass IESG review. - Stewart _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
-- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
