draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02.txt 
Network Working Group A. Farrel Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track S. Bryant Category: Standards Track S. Bryant
Updates: 5586 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 5586 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Expires: December 8, 2013 June 8, 2013 Expires: December 28, 2013 June 28, 2013
Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic
Associated Channel Associated Channel
draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
(ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be (ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be
carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between
the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called
ACH TLVs ACH TLVs
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
there are no live Internet-Drafts that utilize ACH TLVs. there are no live Internet-Drafts that utilize ACH TLVs.
Furthermore, G-ACh packets are intended to be substantially processed Furthermore, G-ACh packets are intended to be substantially processed
in hardware, however, processing TLVs in hardware can be hard because in hardware, however, processing TLVs in hardware can be hard because
of the unpredictable formats and lengths that they introduce to the of the unpredictable formats and lengths that they introduce to the
normal ACH format. normal ACH format.
This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not This document states that ACH TLVs as specified in RFC 5586 are not
useful and might be harmful. It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the useful and might be harmful. It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
Section 4 of this document. Section 4 of this document. This document makes no comment about the
use of TLVs in other places. In particular, proposals to use TLVs
within ACH messages or as an appendage to ACH messages, are not in
scope of this document.
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Update to RFC 5586 2. Update to RFC 5586
Section 3 of RFC 5586 is deleted. Section 3 of RFC 5586 is deleted.
 End of changes. 3 change blocks. 
3 lines changed or deleted 6 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/