The MPLS WG Archive

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

> > Whether it needs to be a separate draft or not remains to be seen.  But
> > it would be most helpful if someone could draft some text and get a
> > discussion going on the list.

I think a separate draft would enable the discussion of this point to be divorced from any
other draft that needs its own life.

It would also make it easier for implementers to find the relevent information.

> Discussion points:
> a) does 3209 (as implemented today) imply hard or soft preemption?

What do you mean "does 3209 (as implemented today) imply..."

The draft may or may not imply something. This is a matter of opinion that may be polled.
I seriously suggest that opinion on what 3209 implies is not very relevant.
We could burn a huge number of cycles analysing what 3209 and 2205 (and 2570) imply.

Why can we not accept that clarification is needed, and move on by writing that
clarification?

The implementation doesn't imply anything. This is not a matter of opinion and cannot be
polled.
If you want an anlysis of what has been implemented, I refer you to
draft-farrel-mpls-preemption-interim-00.txt which I wrote in November at the request of
the WG chairs and which contains the responses from 10 implementors.

> b) should the baseline preemption policy for 3473 follow whatever we
>    agree that 3209 implies?

Erm, I take it you are asking the question "is GMPLS a superset of MPLS?", in which case
the answer is yes.

However, if you are asking whether 3473 will should be clarified/changed in line with
whatever clarification/change is made to 3209, and whether that will impact deployed
implementations, you are asking the question on the wrong list.

> > Can we get consensus on these points before we proceed?

Adrian