Subject: [PWE3] [Fwd: draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-09.txt - LAST CALL]

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:51:47 +0000

Mark, Andy

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Rsvd  | Flags |B|E|   Length  |     Sequence Number           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 3: MPLS PWE3 Control Word

needs a small edit to align it with the changes that I made
to the CW draft in response to the gen-art review:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |0 0 0 0| Flags |FRG|  Length   | Sequence Number               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 2: Preferred PW MPLS Control Word

- Stewart

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:58:44 -0500

Stewart,

Just to be clear, would you like me to issue a -10 with just this 
change, or would you rather wait until WG last call concludes?   Or 
at least wait until the post-IETF draft submission opens?

Cheers,
Andy

-----------

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:32:28 +0000

Since this is really just an editorial change to align
terminology I would think that the best approach would
be to see if anthing else surfaces in the LC and then
issue -10 shortly after 16th incorporating all necessary
changes.

- Stewart

Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> change, or would you rather wait until WG last call concludes?   Or at 
> least wait until the post-IETF draft submission opens?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> -----------
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:38:38 -0500

Stewart,

Actually, after I sent my email I noticed one thing unique to the 
fragmentation draft - it defines the field that you called "FRG" in 
the CW draft, so for the fragmentation draft, we should probably keep 
that field as "B|E" in Figure 3.  I'll still change the upper nibble 
to conform.

Cheers,
Andy

--------