The MPLS WG Archive

[Matt Squire <mattsquire@acm.org>]

Loa - 

I think you're doing the right thing going with only RSVP-TE.  But as
for continuing the CR-LDP work...why?  It can certainly be continued as
individual contributions, but why put the burden on the group to
manage/review additions to something we as a group have decided isn't in
our future?   Personal opinion is that current CR-LDP work be moved to
individual contributions outside of the WG activities.  

- Matt

Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> George and I as the chairs would like to offer our view of where we
> see consensus forming on the recent discussion of signaling protocols.
> We do this to allow further comments before making a final decision on
> the matter.  Please make any comments to the list prior to September 7.
> 
> The current discussion on MPLS signaling protocols shows that:
> 
>   - There is a clear consensus on that the MPLS WG needs to focus
>     its efforts on RSVP-TE as protocol for traffic engineering
>     signaling and that the WG charter should be updated accordingly.
> 
>   - There is a clear majority for discontinuing work on CR-LDP.
>     However, there is no IETF process to "de-standardize" an existing
>     proposed standard that would apply in this situation. Thus
>     CR-LDP will remain a proposed standard.
> 
> To this end:
> 
>   - Existing WG drafts related to or updating/changing CR-LDP will
>     be progressed according to normal procedures.
> 
>   - the Working Group will take on no new WG documents related to
>     CR-LDP.
> 
>   - A message will be sent to the relevant standards organizations
>     notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS signaling protocols.
> 
> Loa and George
> 
> --