Subject: Request for guidance about the flow label

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:29:49 +1200

Hi,

Sheng and I would like to continue our attempt to make the flow label
useful. The discussions in Anaheim and on this list have been very
stimulating. I think we need to simplify the change proposed in
draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02 even more after the recent
discussions, while maintaining the proposed duality (RFC 3697-like
use still possible, but locally-defined use also possible for those who
want it).

Independently, I expect to continue with draft-hu-flow-label-cases
as background material and with draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp as a
specific RFC 3697 use case, with my co-authors on those two drafts.

The guidance we need from the 6MAN WG is: should we start to draft
rfc3697bis, fixing the issues that have been raised and incorporating
the (simplified) proposal from draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update?

That would also need a new milestone added to the 6man charter.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter