initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

I agree with Loa on this. I think we need to be focussed in our approach.

Making CR-LDP as informational will allow more focus on developing an already pervasive standard to be more refined.

My 2 cents

Amrit

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]

> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:42 AM

> To: MPLS wg

> Cc: George Swallow; scott Giles; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)

> Subject: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling (sic) protocols

<snip>

> However, as has been shown in the survey on signaling protocols for

> GMPLS the implementations of rsvp-te far out number the cr-ldp

> implementations. As there are issues with having two similar standards

> (potentially diverging), and it generates duplicate work in several

> ietf working groups, the question was asked whether we should make

> cr-ldp informational (which still make it available and possible to

> work with) and progress only rsvp-te on the standards track.

> At the meeting there were a wide spread support for this idea, but

> it was ruled that it was premature to call wg consensus on this at the

> meeting and that we wanted to take the discussion on the mpls mailing

> list.

> <snip>

The MPLS WG Archive