The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] a step towards consensus on mpls signaling protocol
Again, my concern is that is if it is left as proposed it will wind up on an RFP somewhere, and folks will be forced to implement it in order to respond. It's already happened. Dave On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:14:16AM +0200, Loa Andersson wrote: >> David, >> >> the main argument not to make historic has been that there are >> organizations outside the IETF that reference the cr-ldp spec. >> Re-classifying it would cause problems for those organizations. >> By telling them that it is our intention not to further progress >> the cr-ldp, we given them time to revisit this issue and take the >> actions they need. >> >> /Loa >> >> David Meyer wrote: >> >> >>> - 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. >> >>> >> > >> > Send it to historic, a la RFC 3166/3167, or someone will make me >> > implement it. >> > >> > >> >>>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. >> >>> >> > >> > Again, can we send it to historic or is there some procedural >> > (or other reason) not to do this? >> > >> > Dave >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> 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 >>
|
|