The MPLS WG Archive

["Art King" <art@frost-king.com>]

Satish,

OK, wasn't sure with the extension work coming up for
multi-area TE would force a choice on all of us due
to depth of telecom winter we're in...

Thanks,

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: "satish dattatri" <satish_dattatri@yahoo.com>
To: "Art King" <art@frost-king.com>
Cc: "mpls wg" <mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: a step towards consensus on mpls signaling protocol


> Art,
> Both ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE are deployed today.
> I don't think the same reduction magic works for the
> IGPs ;-)
> Satish
>
> --- Art King <art@frost-king.com> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I hope this is the right group to address this inquiry to.
> >
> > I like the idea that two competing (approximately)
> > signaling protocols are being reduced to one.
> >
> > Does this imply or is there a move to eliminate one or the
> > other of the route distribution protocols (OSPF-TE and
> > ISIS-TE) to further simply implementation and interop?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Art
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Meyer" <dmm@sprint.net>
> > To: "Loa Andersson" <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
> > Cc: "mpls wg" <mpls@UU.NET>; "Scott Bradner"
> > <sob@harvard.edu>; "George
> > Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>; "Bert Wijnen"
> > <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: 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
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com