The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Scott  Bradner wrote:

> the question has been asked about reclassifying a already published
> RFC from Proposed Standard to Informational (i.e. de-standardization)

Here's my take on this (lemme see, which hat should I wear?)

On the one hand, what Eric calls "responsible protocol development"
has meant more drafts and more work for all (including this thread).

On the other hand, I'm not sure the IETF should get into the business
of choosing among protocols.  However, somebody has to.  In this case,
the market did.  Rephrasing Scott's original question: should the IETF
recognize this?  if so, how?

A simple answer is: move RSVP-TE to Draft Standard.  Let CR-LDP
langui^H^H^H^H^H^H, um, remain as PS.  It's probably time to start
thinking about advancing RFC 3209, anyway.

RFC 2026 says: "A specification ... for which *sufficient successful*
operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft
Standard" level."  (My emphasis.)

> specific questions:
> A/ should IETF working group charters be modified to remove a requirement
>    to work on CR-LPD technologies?

Yes.  More important, I would say that a goal in the form "Advance <foo>
to Draft Standard" is dangerous.  One might say, "Consider advancing
<foo> to DS" ... (see MPLS WG charter).

> B/ if there is CR-LDP work already in progress, what should happen to it?

Target the work as Experimental.

> C/ if a working group requests publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
>    technology on the standards track what should we do?

Publish as Experimental.

> D/ if someone requests independent publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
>    technology on the standards track (as permitted by RFC 2026) what
>    should we do?

Publish as Experimental.

Kireeti.