The MPLS WG Archive

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

I agree with Eric.

As an example, we have call/connection separation, which has been kicking
around since the early days of ISDN.  In discussions as to why it is needed,
the first reason is always "because".  Once past that, I have consistently
heard four or five examples cited.  What is interesting is that all of them
can be handled with the existing Make Before Break component of RSVP-TE. 

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:54 PM
> To: Varma, Eve L (Eve)
> Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; George Newsome; Stephen Trowbridge; Loa
> Andersson; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
> 
> 
> 
> Eve> For individual contributor drafts  coming in, it's quite 
> appropriate to
> Eve> evaluate  requirements and determine  if they  are 
> legitimate.   It's a
> Eve> different case when another  SDO, responsible for a 
> non-IP applications
> Eve> domain, has established a set of requirements related to 
> that domain.
> 
> I'd certainly  disagree with  that.  Many of  the 
> "requirements" I  see from
> other  organizations  are  not   requirements  at  all,  but  
> just  dogmatic
> statements  of connection-oriented  religion.  If  the IETF  
> were  to accept
> requirements from  other organizations, it  would quickly be  
> inundated with
> "requirements"  to make IP  behave exactly  like ATM.   In 
> fact,  anyone who
> works in the PWE3 group can testify that such "requirements" 
> come in all the
> time. 
> 
> 
>