Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field
RFC 5462
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment
(2008-12-16)
Unknown
Section 1.2, paragraph 7: > The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all > references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer > to the TC field. I think the "SHOULD" here needs to be a "MUST" - otherwise it leaves the option of not using the new name. (And I don't believe an RFC2119 term is appropriate here, so it should be a lowercase "must".) Similar phrasings occur in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, and they should be changed accordingly.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-17)
Unknown
Abstract s/current use of the EXP this field/current use of this field/ Section 1. Introduction s/after the work on the document were started/after the work on the document was started/ Section 3. Use of the TC field s/have different TF fields from the rest/have different TC fields from the rest/