The MPLS WG Archive

[Soumen Sarkar <soumen@sasken.com>]

Loa,
The response so far heavily indicated for RSVP-TE ( obviously not because of the
merits of RSVP-TE over LDP-CR ). If one has to accept the basic ground-rule, which is,
how many major players are pushing for RSVP-TE, one would blindly vote for RSVP-TE.
        The more esoteric view, which is, single signaling protocol would help
everyone to concentrate better in addressing unresolved  problems in MPLS, is also
appreciably reasonable to accept.
But looking from holistic perspective, is it not too premature at this time to
conclude on this issue unilaterally (even if there is 3/4 majority in favour if it )
when this particular issue affects other standard bodies too ? We know for sure, OIF
is still tracking LDP-CR as an alternative signaling protocol for optical control
plane. Are we not pushing something without even considering future implication of it
? One might say, we are not stopping anyone to use LDP-CR as such. But none would
disagree that making IETF take a stand itself is deterrant enough and if not that
much, it is bound to create conflict of interest between IETF and others.
  Are we really ready for this ? IETF traditionally has been more a forum for vouching
technical solutions, not imposing it. Are we deviating from that path with full
understanding ?
-best regards,
Soumen

Loa Andersson wrote:

> Heinrich,
>
> in my opinion the question is very clearly stated - is there support for
> us (the ietf) to move the cr-ldp from standard track to informational.
> We're "speaking for the ietf", it is more a matter of what we say ;)
>
> All,
>
> As usual we are trying to reach a rough consensus. Everyone (i.e. the
> mpls wg) can help create this consensus by answering the question
> above.
>
> Especially it will be helpful if you were involved in specifying the
> mpls protocols, have implemented or deployed (SP) those protocols, and
> take the time to respond.
>
> I will be ready to give the first extensive tally mid this week.
> Currently the count is
> yes: 30 no: 7,
> if you normalize those e.g. by counting each company once it is
> yes: 21 no: 4
>
> Disclaimer: Given that I've managed to decipher the sometimes cryptic
> mails correctly :o)
>
> /Loa
>
> Hummel Heinrich wrote:
>
> >  I think, the IETF can only speak for itself. There may be other standardization
>
> >bodies (ITU-T, MPLS Forum) which may fill
> > the gap.
> >
> > Heinrich Hummel
> > Siemens AG
> >
>
> --
>      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