Hi Eric, On 6/19/17, 5:44 PM, "BIER on behalf of Eric C Rosen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>> It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track while >> the architecture and encapsulations are experimental. > >I believe the documents are all supposed to be Experimental. However, >this is not necessarily reflected correctly on the first page of each >draft. They seem to be all “Standards Track” right now. > >> The second example in the MPLS encapsulation draft implies a single >> contiguous range of labels when, in fact, it must be encoded as 4 >> separate label ranges in the OSPF draft. > >That implication is unintended, as there is no suggestion that the >labels L1, ..., L12 are successive numeric values. At least, there was >no intent to suggest that. I can add a sentence to make that clearer. Yes - that would definitely satisfy my comment. > >> I think It would be good then to tie the IGP encodings to the two >> examples. > >I think it is appropriate in that example to point out that twelve >labels must be allocated, each corresponding to a different <SD, BDL, >SI> triple. How those twelve labels get signaled is outside the scope >of the encapsulation spec, and is totally a matter for the signaling >documents to address. I agree. After our protracted discussion, I did see that the OSPF draft explicitly specifies "A unique label range is allocated for each BitStream length and Sub-domain-ID.” However, I still think it would be clearer if the protocol draft said something like: "For example, to advertise the labels of the BitStrings in the second example in […], four labels ranges would be advertised, one for each unique Sub-Domain and Bit String Length tuple.” Thanks, Acee > >_______________________________________________ >BIER mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
