The MPLS WG Archive

[Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com>]

My apologies.

I take my comment back, I read it way too quickly (and missed the "not" in
Juha's statement) and was punchy at the keyboard. I guess need more coffee
this morning.

Again, my apologies to both Juha and the MPLS WG,

Overall, I think the ECN part of this draft detracts from the main focus of
this draft, I think Greenville's statement in an earlier email should suffice.
If the other authors would like to submit another ID that addresses the full
scope of ECN, I would fully support this.

Bora

Bora Akyol wrote:

> Juha
>
> Tell us something we did not know already. You are a co-author of this
> document, so unless section 11 went in there without you looking, you must
> have approved of it ;-)
>
> Bora
>
> Juha Heinanen wrote:
>
> > Grenville Armitage writes:
> >
> >  >  "The architecture described in this document does not preclude the
> >  >   signalled or configured use of the EXP bits to support protocols
> >  >   such as ECN [ECN][MPLS_ECN]. However, techniques for supporting
> >  >   ECN in an MPLS environment are outside the scope of this document."
> >
> > i too think that enc should not be part of this document. the above
> > wording is fine.
> >
> > -- juha