Subject: [Gen-art] RE: GENART IETF LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt:

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:50:48 +0300

Hi George,

>Thanks for your review.  The issues you raise seems 
>straightforward except for the two below:
>
>> 2) Section 3 Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment, seems to 
>> define a new attribute.  I'm not an MPLS expert, so I don't know if 
>> this is a new attribute or if it is defined elsewhere.  If it is 
>> defined elsewhere, I think a pointer to the specification is needed.
>
>What "attribute" are you referring to?  I define and use a 
>term "Application Label" as a generic term for a label 
>assigned to a FEC defined by an applications using MPLS.  As I 
>read it, it seems self contained.

That is the label, so if I understand what you are saying, is that
this is a generic format for an 'application label'.  This wasn't
entirely clear to me, so maybe just adding some text, like: 

 This defines and uses a term "Application Label" as a generic term for 
 a label assigned to a FEC defined by an applications using MPLS.

>> 3) Security consideration section should have some text about
security.
>> Do current EMCP practices have any security issues?  If not, then say

>> that.
>
>The guidelines for the security section say that one should 
>explore the security issues raised by the proposal.  I don't 
>think this means I need to address any security issues 
>associated with current ECMP practices.
>They are what they are and this document doesn't change them 
>one way or the other.  I honestly don't believe that there are 
>any security issues with current ECMP practices.  But those 
>practices are vendor proprietary, so I am certainly in no 
>position to say for sure.  Nor do I think the IETF would want 
>to take on the liability associated with publishing such an assertion.

That's fine, then.  Perhaps stating in the draft what you say
above would be OK?

thanks,
John

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:04:41 -0400

>  a label assigned to a FEC defined by an applications using MPLS.

John, I disagree.  It already says "The field in the figure below
tagged "Application Label" is a label of the FEC Type used/defined by
the application".  "Application" is used throughout the draft.
"Application label" is not a formal term, it's descriptive.  I flinch
at formally defining terms when they are just descriptive phrases,
because I spend too much time trying to harmonize different people's
sets of terms where they overlap.

Scott

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:50:25 -0400

John -

I replied to this last week, but I think it may have gotten lost by my
mailer...

>  a label assigned to a FEC defined by an applications using MPLS.

I'll add some clarifying text, but I think I'll leave the definition
local to this document.

> That's fine, then.  Perhaps stating in the draft what you say

I really rather not.  It's likely to raise a lot of questions that only
individual vendors can answer.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719