Re: [IPFIX] [SPAM I AM] RE: MPLS IEs in IANA's IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry
Andrew Feren <[email protected]> Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:43:21 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Then perhaps the right thing is to deprecate the lot and replace them all. Thanks, -Andrew On 09/10/2014 05:28 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > you’re right, the RFC 5462 changed the interpretation of this field as > well (section 2 Details of Change): > > *2.1* <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5462#section-2.1>*. RFC 3032 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3032>* > > > > > > RFC 3032 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3032> states on page 4: > > > > 3. Experimental Use > > > > This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use. > > > > This paragraph is now changed to: > > > > 3. Traffic Class (TC) field > > > > This three-bit field is used to carry traffic class information, > > and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs > > in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > *From:*Andrew Feren [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:25 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Gregory Mirsky > *Subject:* Re: [IPFIX] MPLS IEs in IANA's IP Flow Information Export > (IPFIX) Entities registry > > > > Hi Greg, > > On 09/10/2014 03:22 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote: > > Dear All, > > in several places of describing MPLS Label element IEs the > registry still refers to the EXP field even though the RFC 5462 > updated RFC 3032 and renamed it “Traffic Class” (TC). Below is the > list of IEs that may benefit from updating Description and > Reference information: > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection2 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection3 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection4 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection5 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection6 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection7 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection8 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection9 > > · mplsTopLabelStackSection10 > > · mplsTopLabelExp (should this be deprecated and > mplsTopLabelTc be created instead?) > > · postMplsTopLabelExp (should this be deprecated and > postMplsTopLabelTc be created instead?) > > > Did 5462 change just the name from Exp to TC or did the interpretation > of the bits change? > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix