RE: FW: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Well, that is why I suggested we should run it by the IPv6
WG. If FlowLabel and FlowLableOrAny are better descriptors
for the two TCs, then that is what we should use.

Is it still OK to also mention flowID in the DESCRIPTION
clause, so that people who have been using FlowId will
recognize it?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 28 januari 2003 3:12
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: FW: FlowId and FlowIdOrAny
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >- Someone creates a new ID that contains a small MIB module
> >   that contains two TCs:
> >
> >   FlowId            TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> >       STATUS        current
> >       DESCRIPTION  "The flow identifier or flow Label in an IPv6
> >                     header that may be used to discriminate traffic
> >                     flows.
> >                    "
> >       SYNTAX        Integer32 (0..1048575)
> >
> >   FlowIdOrAny       TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
> >       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
> >       STATUS        current
> >       DESCRIPTION  "The flow identifier or flow lable in an IPv6
> >                     header that may be used to discriminate traffic
> >                     flows.  The value of -1 is used to indicate a
> >                     wildcard, i.e. any value.
> >                    "
> >       SYNTAX        Integer32 (-1 | 0..1048575)
> 
> Is there are reason for referring to this as the "flow identifier
> or flow label"?  The field in IPv6 is unambiguously called the
> "flow label", as far as I know.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
>