The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Jun> msg00567



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Clarifying 2.6.5 Re: Last Call feedback on MPLS-Diff-Serv

  • From: Grenville Armitage <gja@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:34:44 -0700
  • CC: mpls@UU.NET
  • Organization: Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies

Francois,

Continuing discussion of section 2.6.5:

Francois Le Faucheur wrote:
	[..]
> >#7 Clarify 2.6.5
> >
> >   Section 2.6.5's last sentence attempts to be normative about
> >   something it simultaneously declares out of scope for this
> >   document. Please clarify, reduce, or remove this section
> 
> We can get rid of the word "may" of the last sentence so that it
> reads: "Models beyond the Uniform Model and the Pipe Model are
> outside the scope of this specification but are not precluded by
> this specification".

Assuming 2.6.5 is needed, it would be sufficient for the final
sentence to read "Models beyond the Uniform Model and the Pipe
Model are outside the scope of this specification."

However....

> >(the
> >   essence can be stated somewhere earlier in section 2 anyway).
> >
> 
> I woudl find it difficult to summarise something that explains
> that there could be other models, give a potential example of
> such other models and clarify it is outside the scope of this
> spec in less than 3 sentences. So I propose to leave it as it is.

Since I dont think this document even needs to speculate on the
form of alternative models beyond Uniform and Pipe, there's really
no need for multiple sentences. And in fact the intent of 2.6.5 would
be captured perfectly by modifying the last paragraph of
section 2.6.2 (where the modelling scope of 2.6 is described) to
conclude with:

  "[..]These two models are the Uniform Model and the Pipe Model and
   their operations over MPLS is described in the following sections.
   Discussion and definition of alternative tunneling models are
   outside the scope of this specification."

(Defining something as outside the scope of "this specification"
automatically leaves the door open for future specifications to
cover such things)

Voila, section 2.6 now simplified :)  This is my recommendation.


cheers,
gja
________________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                    http://members.home.net/garmitage/
Bell Labs Research Silicon Valley