[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Flow Label [Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: 
Sham, the flow label is low on my personal priority list.
The reason I was eager to get RFC 3697 done is to set boundary
conditions on its use, but developing the actual use cases
seems to me to be off the critical path for the IETF.

Looking at your email address, I can see why you might give it
higher priority - but do you need the IETF for that right now,
as long as you obey RFC 3697?


FWIW, my personal take --

It might possibly make sense to set up a mailing list on IPv6 flow label usage, try to solicit people to join it, propose and discuss various proposals... and depending on how it goes, try to run a BOF at the next meeting to gauge the real interest.

Even if there is not sufficient interest, I believe it's vital to success to get those people interested of the flow label together.

At the first stage, the product might not be an IETF standards track document, or even an IETF document -- e.g., an experimental RFC through RFC-editor developed based on the mailing list discussion, but that would be at least a basis for further work w/ flow label.

In other words, it's important to get those diffserv/qos geeks in the same list/room with IPv6 specialists and those who'd like to use flow label in new, innovative ways .. and see what happens.

IMHO, in any case, v6ops-like generic WGs are probably not a good place to get sufficient amount of interest & expertise together.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings