The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Jan> msg00107



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

IANA Considerations for RSVP

  • From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:52:30 -0800 (PST)
  • cc: David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>, Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>, <rsvp@ISI.EDU>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <mpls@UU.NET>, <iana@ISI.EDU>, <sob@harvard.edu>, <mankin@psg.com>, <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Hi Zhi,

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> This seems like an unfair characterization. All requests are submitted
> by individuals. In terms of changing these protocols...

I beg to differ.  The publication request of the original RSVP-TE spec was
made *by the MPLS WG*.  The publication request of the GMPLS RSVP spec was
makde *by the CCAMP WG*.  Furthermore, the issue is not who submits the
document; it is the degree of scrutiny it gets.  *Standards Track* docs
go through a much stricter review than informational ones.

> The GMPLS RSVP-TE, which is done in IETF, makes major modifications to
> RFC3209 and RFC2205 version of RSVP. The rest of the changes been
> requested are three new objects, new error codes to support these
> objects. This can hardly be characterized as forcibly changing RSVP or
> major change in direction...

Do you consider deprecating ResvErr and ResvTear not "forcibly changing
RSVP or major change in direction"?

Kireeti.