Subject: Re: Encoding of MPLS label in MP-REACH-NLRI question

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:28:54 -0700

> Barring objection, I will change this to:
> 
>         The Label  field carries one or more  labels (that corresponds
>         to the  stack of labels [MPLS-ENCAPS]). Each  label is encoded
>         as 3  octets, where the  high-order 20 bits contain  the label
>         value,  the following  three bits  must be  zero, and  the low
>         order  bit   contains  "Bottom   of  Stack"  (as   defined  in
>         [MPLS-ENCAPS]).
> 
> and reissue the draft.

Eric,
I can only assume you knew this was coming, so I'll get 
right to the point.  First, let's briefly review some
recent posts:

--------
Date:    Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:17:46 EST
From:    Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Concerns regarding the numerous layer violations...

...

The goal was just to make the  stuff useful, not to achieve a political goal
or  to  maintain a  level  of architectural  purity. 
...

--------
Date:    Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:47:45 EST
From:    Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Concerns regarding the numerous layer violations...

...
No one  wanted to make a career  of re-editing and re-organizing the documents, 
and  then having to obtain a new WG  consensus around the new organization. 
...

--------

Why is it now ok to edit and reissue the draft?  I won't 
even speculate, I believe it's clearly obvious.  Though I 
don't have strong feelings either way about this change,
I believe the inconsistency in your willingness to 
cooperate should be observed.

-danny

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:51:38 -0800

Danny,

First I think the little change below can not be compared to the serious
of proposals made in the "... numerous layer violations... " thread a
while back. You are just not comparing the same orders of magnitudes
here at all.

Second I always thought that the nature of a draft is to be able to
adjust it to fit it to the most of the operational community or proven
solutions. That is not to say that the nature of the draft allows to
turn it upside down while it is in the rfc editor queue and deployed
widely :).

R.

> Danny McPherson wrote: