The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Eric Gray wrote:

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

Ina wrote:

>        From a standards point of view, this cannot be done, since
> the mtu extensions is not yet an RFC.

You're both missing a key point.  That does not mean your conclusion
is incorrect :-)

RFC 2026 says:

4.1.2  Draft Standard

   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

While I think that the LDP MTU stuff is wonderful, folding it into a
DRAFT STANDARD is soooo tomorrow -- no implementation, let alone two
interoperable implementations (it is currently targeted as
Experimental just for this reason), no vast storehouse of deployment
experience, none of what it takes to take a doc to Draft status.

Let it mature for a few years, then we can re-evaluate.

The same principle should apply to anything else that people suggest
get put into the DS version of 3036, *even parts of 3036* that
haven't had enough exposure, implementation or deployment.

Kireeti.
-------

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