The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Nabil,

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Nabil Seddigh wrote:

> This is an excellent point that must surely be a source of concern
> to many! It is certainly an issue that has been raised before on
> this mailing list.
>
> For various reasons, the authors did not wish to undertake
> the effort required to change the current drafts.

There is an infinitude of ways that people can misunderstand,
misinterpret and misimplement specs.  There isn't enough time to
set everyone straight.  Besides which, the drafts are fine; what
*might* be needed is an applicability statement.

> Unnumbered links & graceful restart are not specific to gmpls

Can you explain to me "specific to Generalized MPLS"?  If you do,
I will write the applicability statement myself :-)

> and I never understood the rational for rolling them into
> the gmpls drafts. IMHO, it is better to remove the content in
> 2 separate drafts.

Unnumbered *is* a separate draft!  (... as is LSP hierarchy, before
someone says that hierarchy is specific to GMPLS.)

> However, if this is too much work for the authors at this
> point then approach of an "MPLS-applicable" section in the
> GMPLS drafts may be a suitable compromise.

Authors tend to get so into their work that they cannot always see
that some topics are confusing.  It is then up to *someone else*
with a *new* point of view to write the app statement (not the
authors), especially when the authors themselves think such
statements are not needed.

Kireeti.