The MPLS WG Archive

[Joan Cucchiara <jcucchia@CrescentNetworks.com>]

Loa,

I believe that both
draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-03.txt and
draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-08.txt fall into this same
category.  These MIBs have gone through working
group last call(s) and IESG review
process.  They are being updated by mib co-authors.

   -Thanks,
    Joan

Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
> Matt,
> 
> here are the mpls wg list of documents that we are talking about,
> all are through wg last call and has been reviewed by wg chairs.
> 
> Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP
> draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-07.txt
> 
> Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with
> LSP Feedback in CR-LDP
> draft-ietf-mpls-te-feed-04.txt
> 
> Fault Tolerance for LDP and CR-LDP
> draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ft-04.txt
> 
> Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol
> Query Message Description
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-04.txt
> 
> All of them are in or about to be sent to the IESG for review.
> Point here is that most of them has parts that address ldp (i.e.
> non cr-ldp issues) that we want to progress. My take on this is
> that there are much less work for the wg to follow "normal
> procedures" for those documents, and that this would not put
> us in a situation that is different from what we have  for the
> existing rfcs (proposed) that is based on cr-ldp.
> 
> Of course there are lots of thing that may happen down the road.
> If one of those documents gets sent back to the wg (authors) by
> the IESG because a new revision is needed, it is up to the authors
> or wg to take a decision on how to handle this.
> 
> There are also some possible impact on the mibs, that I don't
> have a clear picture of - any of the mib-authors that has a view
> on the impact of this decision.
> 
> Then there are documents that is owned by other working groups,
> those working groups needs to make their own decisions.
> 
> Of course this my opinion, if there is support for "individualize"
> the existing cr-ldp, first thing we've to do is to make sure that
> we have a defined procedure to do so.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Matt Squire wrote:
> 
> > 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
>      Chief Architect,
>      Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
>      Utfors AB
>      Råsundavägen 12
>      Box 525, 169 29 Solna
>      Office          +46 8 5270 2000
>      Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
>      Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
>      Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
>      WWW             www.utfors.se