draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt 
MPLS Working Group L. Andersson MPLS Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting
Updates: 3032, 7274 (if approved) K. Kompella Updates: 3032, 7274 (if approved) K. Kompella
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: May 24, 2020 A. Farrel Expires: November 6, 2020 A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
November 21, 2019 May 5, 2020
Special Purpose Label terminology Special Purpose Label terminology
draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-01 draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used This document discusses and recommends a terminology that may be used
when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented. when MPLS Special Purpose Labels (SPL) are specified and documented.
This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032. This document updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
One thing that RFC 7274 did was to deprecate use use of the term One thing that RFC 7274 did was to deprecate use use of the term
"reserved labels" when describing a range of labels allocated from a "reserved labels" when describing a range of labels allocated from a
registry maintained by IANA. The term "Reserved" in such a registry registry maintained by IANA. The term "Reserved" in such a registry
means "set aside, not to be used", but that range of labels was means "set aside, not to be used", but that range of labels was
available for allocation according to the policies set out in the available for allocation according to the policies set out in the
registry. The name "Special Purpose Labels" was introduced in RFC registry. The name "Special Purpose Labels" was introduced in RFC
7274 in place of the previous term, and the abbreviation SPL was 7274 in place of the previous term, and the abbreviation SPL was
recommended. recommended.
At the time of posting this Internet-Draft, the IETF was in the At the time of writing the first version of this document, the IETF
process of allocating the very first SPLs from the Extended SPL range was in the process of allocating the very first SPLs from the
[RFC8595]. This document discusses and recommends terminology and Extended SPL range [RFC8595]. This document discusses and recommends
abbreviations to be used when talking about and documenting Special terminology and abbreviations to be used when talking about and
Purpose Labels. documenting Special Purpose Labels.
This document updates RFC 3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 7274 [RFC7274] and This document updates RFC 3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 7274 [RFC7274] and
RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in that it changes the terminology for both Base RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in that it changes the terminology for both Base
SPLs and Extended SPLs. SPLs and Extended SPLs.
2. Background 2. Background
Two sets of SPLs are defined for use in MPLS: Two sets of SPLs are defined for use in MPLS:
The range of SPLs 0-15 is specified in RFC 3032 [RFC3032]. The range of SPLs 0-15 is specified in RFC 3032 [RFC3032].
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/