The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

Heinrich,

This is not really correct.  I (and others) have spent quite a bit of time 
to ensure that functionality added to one protocol is added to the 
other.  The reason for this has been so that the technology can advance 
without having to get mired down in the protocol wars that we went through 
in the early days of MPLS.

At this point, I think both protocols deliver equivalent 
functionality.  Both protocols have their plusses and minuses that can be 
argued for as long as folks have energy.  But IMO, we're at the point where 
differences in robustness and scalability are now in the domain of the 
quality of implementation and not resulting of the base protocol.

Going forward, I think that having just one protocol to deliver a piece of 
functionality so that we don't have to duplicate work is goodness.  Based 
on the GMPLS implementation survey, I think that GMPLS-CR-LDP should move 
forward as informational.  I think that reclassifying CR-LDP to 
informational (or historic, if that's the right procedural thing) also 
makes sense based on market acceptance.

Lou

At 11:12 AM 7/23/2002, Hummel Heinrich wrote:
>Well spoken.
>Additionally, all those who do not care for CR-LDP have hardly contributed 
>in the past nor will they contribute
>in the future to extend routing protocols for the sake of CR-LDP. This 
>sweat is up to the CR-LDP supporters.
>It is not honest to complain about the burden carried by the others.
>Heinrich
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: avri [mailto:avri@sm.luth.se]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2002 15:26
>Cc: MPLS wg
>Betreff: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
>
>
>
>
>This seems to me a very strange proposal.  And in fact seems to be
>a perversion of the IETF standards process as i understand it.
>
>If things are as argued, then RSVP-TE will progress to draft standard
>and then to standard, while CR-LDP remains a proposed standard.  If
>it languishes long enough in the proposed state, without significant
>deployment or utility, then it would seem appropriate to transition it
>to historic at some point in the future.
>
>Taking it to informational at this point seems a fairly blatant political
>move without technical merit.  At best it is an administrative sleight
>of hand that could strange repercussions as a precedent.  Is the IETF
>going to embark next on an effort to define all protocol duplication
>out of existence by voting on which alternative to make informational?
>
>I would suggest (as voting is not something I thought the IETF did) that
>both protocols remain as ps. If CR-LDP withers on the vine because it has
>no utility, so be it.  Voting to change its status seems inappropriate to
>me.
>
>a.