Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-03

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:43:43 +0100

Stewart,

Apologies for the delay in responding, please see inline my comments.

On 5 Jul 2010, at 19:08, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> The signaling text that I am suggesting we use is:
> 
> =========
> 
> 4.  Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label 
> 
>    When using the signalling procedures in [RFC4447], a Pseudowire 
>    Interface Parameter Flow Label Sub-TLV (FL Sub-TLV) type is used to 
>    synchronise the flow label states between the ingress and egress PEs. 
> 
>    The absence of a FL Sub-TLV indicates that the PE is unable process 
>    flow labels.  A PE that is using PW signalling and that does not send 
>    a FL Sub-TLV MUST NOT include a flow label in the PW packet.  A PE 
>    that is using PW signalling and which does not receive a FL Sub-TLV 
>    from its peer MUST NOT include a flow label in the PW packet.  This 
>    preserves backwards compatibility with existing PW specifications. 
> 
>    A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a PW packet includes in its 
>    label mapping message a FL Sub-TLV with T = 1 (see Section 4.1). 

Should this be "MUST include" or "SHOULD include"?

>    A PE that is able to receive a flow label includes in its label 
>    mapping message a FL Sub-TLV with R = 1 (see Section 4.1). 

Should this also be "MUST include" or "SHOULD include"?

Otherwise the suggested text looks fine to me.

Ben

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:32:16 +0100

> Should this also be "MUST include" or "SHOULD include"?
In both cases it is a MUST - apologies for the informal language.

Stewart