The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <ewgray@GraIyMage.com>]

Ina,

    From an IETF standards process perspective, what you say below is not
strictly correct. That does not mean that your conclusion is incorrect. :-)

    You cannot refer to the MTU extensions work in progress as a normative
reference until it is an RFC. However, if it turns out that LDP 
implementations
typically include these extensions and multiple such implementations are 
found
to not only include it but interoperate as well, then you certainly 
_could_ "fold
in" the actual contents (at least as actually implemented). In fact, if 
a number of
implementation reports indicated that implementing these extensions was 
needed
in order to achieve interoperability, you would have to do so.

    Assuming these extensions are not required to make LDP work (I 
believe this
to be the case) then the fact that you _could_ "fold in" the extensions 
does not
mean that you should. In fact, from the perspective that "options are 
(often) bad",
you should not.

    So, while I agree with the conclusion that we don't want to do this, 
I have to
object to the (possibly precedent setting) statement that "this cannot 
be done".

--
Eric

Ina Minei wrote:

>	Mark,
>
>	Thank you for your feedback, please see inline below.
>
>  
>
>>1.  It would be nice to fold the content of
>>draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mtu-extensions-02.txt into the main LDP standard document.
>>    
>>
>
>	From a standards point of view, this cannot be done, since the mtu
>extensions is not yet an RFC.
>
>  
>
>  
>



_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls