The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <ewgray2k@netscape.net>]

Title:

Eric,

    It may be rediculous to assert that we should remove something from
the 
LDP specification because nobody is using it only to then say that - if
someone
is using it - they should use the usual IETF process to put it back in.

    The problem here is that an outside organization defined a
dependency on a
piece of the protocol then believed to be part of the standard. We
could uphold
the traditional IETF argument and say - "where then is the
implementation?"

    However, if we want to do that, then I would strongly urge that we
hold off 
pushing LDP to Draft Standard until we have "sufficient operational
experience."
The fact that we have other organizations who want to use some of the
currently
(at least allegedly) unimplemented features of the current
specification is probable
cause to suspect that the current Proposed Standard has not yet
received enough
of an experiential work-out.

    So, either we allow that an external dependency constitutes a "use"
under the
aegis of the IETF process, or we defer progressing the Proposed
Standard at
this time.

--
Eric Gray

Eric Rosen wrote:
> > In Ina's  first draft,  the Prefix Address  FEC was  GOING TO change  as a
> > result of elimination of the Host Address FEC. 
> >   
>
> I was getting ready  to send her comments on that when  it was brought to my
> attention that she had removed the changes.  No change to the Address Prefix
> FEC is  necessary.  (I wrote the original  text for section 2.1,  and it was
> always  my  intention that  the  Host Address  FEC  be  optional and  easily
> removable,  as I  always thought  it was  a  bad idea  and had  no plans  to
> implement it.) 
>
> > It could be copied into an internet draft, but that's just makework, since
> > you can read the document right now with one click. 
> >   
>
> I think you mean that I can access the document with one click ;-)
>
> I believe that the liaison statement  is really requesting a codepoint in an
> IETF protocol,  to be used  for a purpose  which is specified in  a non-IETF
> document.  This is no different than any other attempt by non-IETF groups to
> extend IETF protocols, and I believe  the usual process for that involves an
> internet-draft, as well as review within the IETF. 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


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