RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

At 03:14 PM 1/28/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> I actually did send of an email to one of the authors
> (Brian) and one IPv6 WG chair (Margaret) to ask if
> such would be a good idea. We'll see how they answer.
As I responded to Bert directly, I think that we should publish
the flow label TCs in a separate document.

This is for two reasons:

        (1) The flow label document has been difficult to
                complete, we are very close to last call,
                and I don't want to upset that now.

        (2) The MIB doesn't apply to anything in the new
                flow label definition.  The flow label
                field and its size/values are already
                defined in RFC 2460, so I see no reason
                why the flow label TCs need to be
                dependent on the new draft.

I'd be happy to put this document together and publish it
through the IPv6 WG as part of our MIB development, unless
someone has a better plan.

BTW, I don't mind mentioning (in a description clause and/or
in the text of the document) that this TC corresponds to the
"FlowID", but I do think that the real name of the TC should
be consistent with the real IPv6 terminology -- flow label.

Margaret