The MPLS WG Archive

[Alia Atlas <aatlas@avici.com>]

Good point. :-)   I was just hunting a reasonable compromise... if it 
becomes necessary.  I'd rather not frankly.  Let's just get what we've 
defined clearly standardized.

Alia

At 04:31 PM 10/11/2002 -0700, Pan, Ping wrote:
>Alia, please don't go down that path. :-) We have seen that informational 
>RFC 2547.... Let the customers decide, not IETF.
>
>Alia Atlas wrote:
>>What about making the method an informational part of the draft, with the 
>>sender-template-specific method a SHOULD?  In that way, the information 
>>about what was been done in the past will be preserved and inter-operable 
>>implementations can be made, but only as long as the interoperability 
>>with the path-specific method matters to someone.
>>Alia
>>At 07:09 AM 10/11/2002 -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Success is relative; the more success, the more relatives. -Anonymous
>>> >
>