The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

I also think Avri has raised an important point, and when I saw this item on the WG agenda, I expected the discussion to be about a move to historical and not informational status (which I would have considered premature). I share the expressed concern about de-standardization.

Seems to me there should be a third path. That is no change to status, and no longer require or encourage that these protocols be joined at the hip. If they cross pollinate, so be it, but it is by desire not fiat. Seems to me that this artificial joining is the actual problem both from a "failure to differentiate" and "make work" POV.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soumen Sarkar [mailto:soumen@sasken.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:04 AM
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: Ong, Lyndon; 'mborden@acm.org'; egray@celoxnetworks.com; 'avri';
> mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
>
>
> Loa,
>     Thanks for summarizing. I would support the 2nd approach
> on the ground that
> Avri has nicely has put forth.
>   2ndly, this approach is very much aligned to IETF's way of working.
> -best regards,
> Soumen
>
> Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > (off list for clarification)
> > it seems like you are agreeing based on two very different
> approaches.
> >
> > 1. don't do anyhting about the doc status to cr-ldp, but stop all
> >     work on it (Lyndon)
> > 2. don't do anything to doc status, but require (encoruage) that id
> >     authors work only on one singalling protocol at a time (Eric).
> >
> > 1 is very close to what was proposed at the mpls wg meeting, 2 is
> > actually a decission to continue develop cr-ldp.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > Ong, Lyndon wrote:
> >
> > > This might be actually a reasonable solution, to "cap" the
> > > work on CR-LDP.  I'd have the same concern as Avri with
> > > taking an approved standard and "de-standardizing" it,
> > > although it would help to know if this has been done
> > > before.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Lyndon Ong
> > > Ciena
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marty Borden [mailto:m.borden@verizon.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:38 AM
> > > To: egray@celoxnetworks.com; 'avri'
> > > Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> > > Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > Well that would be good if it were acceptable for a draft
> > > to not have to cover both approaches.  Is that really acceptable?
> > > marty
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/23/2002 at 12:09 PM Gray, Eric wrote:
> > >
> > > |Avri makes a very good point here.
> > > |
> > > |I think the implementation survey makes it obvious that
> > > |we should progress RSVP-TE (and related work) to Draft
> > > |Standard.  It seems equally clear that we should not do
> > > |so for CR-LDP at this point.
> > > |
> > > |Letting CR-LDP die on the vine certainly seems in keeping
> > > |with what the IETF has done in the past.
> > > |
> > > |Eric W. Gray
> > > |Systems Architect
> > > |Celox Networks, Inc.
> > > |egray@celoxnetworks.com
> > > |508 305 7214
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |-----Original Message-----
> > > |From: avri [mailto:avri@sm.luth.se]
> > > |Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:26 AM
> > > |Cc: MPLS wg
> > > |Subject: 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >      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
>
>