The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Feb> msg00200



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:54:13 -0500
  • cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, George Newsome <gnewsome@ieee.org>, Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, mpls@UU.NET
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3(Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2(sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)


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.