Subject: Re: [Status] Summary of STATUS BOF and the next steps

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:39:32 -0400 (EDT)

> From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>

    > Inventing a new term to describe an existing phenomenon is not
    > necessarily a good idea.

The only two possible existing terms are "source routing" and "explicit
routing", and both of them cover a lot more ground then the specific design
here. Did I miss another alternative?

    > From RFC3031

Just because one can find one document which supports a particular reading,
that doesn't necessarily mean much, if there are other documents which support
other readings. E.g.:

  Tunneling typically contrasts with a layered protocol model ... The
  delivery protocol usually ... operates at a higher level in the model than
  does the payload protocol

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol

(from the first entry in a quick Google search).

      Noel

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:46:10 -0700

Noel,

> (from the first entry in a quick Google search).

rfc3031 is a product of IETF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol is not.

In the context of IETF work, reading supported by IETF documents (RFCs) takes
precedence over reading supported by other non-IETF documents.

Yakov.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:58:49 +0100

Hi Noel,

Far be it from me to criticise the wisdom of wikipedia, but...

>   does the payload protocol

"operates at  higher level" might be an architectural rather than a
technological definition.

Whatever!

I consider IP-in-IP to be tunneling. Looks like IP is probably at the same level
as IP.
I think that pseudowires are tunneling. Looks like IP/L2TP/MPLS are probably at
a higher layer than Ethernet or TDM.
I think MPLS-in-MPLS is tunneling, and MPLS is at the same level as MPLS.

So, maybe, next time you are updating this wikipedia entry, s/operates at a
higher level/operates at the same or a higher level/

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:36:34 +0000

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Status] Summary of STATUS BOF and the next steps
> 

[JD]  I'm happy with either source routing or explicit routing.  If you insist upon a new term, why not 'directed forwarding|routing'. 

> that doesn't necessarily mean much,

[JD]  You were making incorrect statements about MPLS, so for some odd reason I thought it appropriate to reference the MPLS architecture RFC. 

> if there are other documents which
> support other readings. E.g.:
> 

[JD]  Perhaps you would consider re-writing this?