[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
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.