The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi David,

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, David Charlap wrote:

> Bob Braden wrote:
> >
> > There is a growing unease about IANA assignments of RSVP parameters --
> > object numbers, CTypes, message types, and error numbers -- for new
> > uses of RSVP.  Many of these IANA requests, but not all, originate
> > outside the IETF in other standards bodies.  Many of the people from
> > outside the IETF were not part of the RSVP working group and so did not
> > absorb the technical rationale behind RSVP; in fact, they are sometimes
> > barely clued into IETF procedures at all.
>
> I've noticed the same thing.  It seems that many non-IETF groups want to
> use RSVP, and all believe that they must create extensions to the
> protocol for their features, often without first bothering to check if
> there are already obects defined by IETF standards that already serve
> their purposes.  And even in those cases where new objects may be
> required, the proposed objects are often defined as having semantics
> that differ greatly from the way RSVP usually operates.

Glad to hear you say that!

> In other words, these groups seem to want to forcibly change RSVP into a
> protocol that more closely resembles some other protocol that they're
> more intimately familiar with.

No comment :)

> Unfortunately, I don't know what can be done about this.

It's not that hard.  As Bob said, redo the IANA Considerations
(and not just for RSVP) to require *well* documented specs that
go through tighter screening in the appropriate WGs.

Kireeti.