The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

> We plan on going last call, Please comment on list.

Thanks Matthew, good to have a clear statement.
Is the continued purpose of the draft to achieve "soft pre-emption", to "allowing
gathering of information on pre-empted resources through the RRO", or both?

Loa, George,
Can you please drive the WG into adopting a single solution.
You will be familiar with the motivation for the work that I started since:
- I documented them in a draft
- you asked me to do the work.

I don't want to appear too pissy, but unless someone wants to pay me to work on this, I am
reluctant to do it and see it go straight in the trash.

Cheers,
Adrian

>  |In Seoul, while discussing draft-farrel-mpls-preemption-00.txt, I asked whether
>  |draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt was now fully redundant or whether it would be
>  |respun for a different problem space.
>  |
>  |As far as I can see, the resubmission as 02 is unchanged from 01 so I assume that this
has
>  |been done simply to keep the draft alive. Can the authors/chairs/WG comment on the
plans
>  |for this draft.
>  |
>  |Thanks,
>  |Adrian
>  |
>  |Hint: I am scheduled to respin draft-farrel-mpls-preemption to fully address GMPLS
>  |requirements (it already addresses MPLS requirements). However, I am only going to do
this
>  |if there really is support from the WG. I see no value in both drafts addressing the
same
>  |problem space.