The MPLS WG Archive

["Brijesh Kumar" <brijesh.kumar@att.net>]

Tom,

After following Shahram's mails on the issue, it doesn't look like that  the
draft has a consensus.
The working code only comes after there is a consensus, not other way round.
Otherwise, it is not clear  whose "working code" one is talking about.

Cheers,

--brijesh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
To: "'Thomas D. Nadeau'" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
Cc: <mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: what's the status of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-00.
txt


> Unfortunately I did not see any consensus? and in fact I saw many
> objections. Therefore since no consensus exits for path-specific method,
> it has to be taken out of the draft.
>
> -Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:10 AM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: RE: what's the status of
> > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-00. txt
> >
> >
> >
> > > > As for the path-specific method, we cannot take it out
> > for a simple
> > > > reason, that is, it is how Juniper had implemented and
> > > > deployed.
> > >
> > >Although I have tried this a couple of times, but let me do it again:
> > >
> > >IETF is a standard organization. It is not a place to rubber stamp
> > >individual companies implementations, but rather a place to
> > figure out
> > >the best solutions for the industry.
> > >
> > >There is always a risk of implementing a technology before
> > it is standardized.
> > >If we go by your logic then every implementation in the
> > field must be
> > >standardized !
> > >
> > >Does that make sense?
> >
> >          Sharam,
> >
> >          At the risk of repeating myself and others on the
> > topic, remember the
> > IETF mantra: working code and rough consensus.   This is to a
> > large part
> > why the Internet works today and is still not a research project.
> >
 >          --Tom