> ISSUE 4. The Introduction previously included: > > Doing this [setting the flow label] > enables load spreading and receiver oriented resource allocation, for > example. > > The phrase "receiver oriented resource allocation" has been deleted because > we don't know what it means. > > QUESTION: Is this deletion OK?
Full context: "The minimum level of IPv6 flow support consists of labeling the flows. IPv6 source nodes supporting the flow labeling MUST be able to label known flows (e.g., TCP connections, application streams), even if the node itself would not require any flow-specific treatment. Doing this enables load spreading and receiver oriented resource reservations, for example." The phrase "receiver oriented resource allocation" was intended to refer to a case where a receiver of a flow allocated resources for the flow (e.g. on a radio interface). This could be useful where the source considers the traffic best-effort, but where the destination wants/needs better than best-effort treatment (without involving the source in any way). It is OK for deletion. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
