RE: DRN and TID Label Issues

Brian,

Since it is a feature that does solve a problem for some set of
applications (not all), I believe it should stay.  As far as I can tell
from the other people that did respond, they have no problem with it
either and seem to have solutions for all the problems that you are
pointing out.  I know that we do.

Regards,
Lincoln

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:31 PM
To: Haresign Lincoln
Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
Subject: DRN and TID Label Issues

Lincoln,

I can continue, but IMO the following is clear:

 - DRN/TID labels was stuffed into the SUAv16 at the last moment
   without any WG consideration.

 - The mechanism did not receive sufficient review.

 - The text does not bear up to the least bit of scrutiny.

 - Those implementing a like mechanism have implemented it the
   way that they "think" it should work rather than the way that
   it is specified.

 - Resulting implementations are not interoperable.

As a result, IMO, it needs to be fixed or struck.  Fixed, to me, means
someone taking the time to change text across each of the procedural
sections and subject it to sufficient WG scrutinty that it will not
represent a big defect in the next RFC.

Striking, to me, could consist of a simple statement that the DRN/TID
mechanism SHOULD NOT be used, the "SHOULD NOT" justified by the lack of
interoperable solutions based on the current text.

If its fixed, who is going to do the work?  If its struck, it is a one
line change in the IG and deletion of several IG sections.

Realize that it will be over two years before the IG will make it to an
RFC.

--brian

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/