The MPLS WG Archive

["Andrew G. Malis" <andymalis@comcast.net>]

Eric,

It specifies a use for a codepoint documented in a published standards 
track RFC.  It's no different than using a published codepoint in any 
other  standards track RFC.

There's no established WG consensus to remove the FEC from LDP.  It was 
proposed in the initial revision of the 3036 update, but then the change 
was removed after several people spoke up in favor of retaining the FEC.

If it turns out the WG consensus is to remove the FEC, then Ina will have 
to restore the two changes she removed, including changing the semantics of 
the Prefix Address FEC to provide equivalent functionality.

But at this point, no such consensus exists.

Cheers,
Andy

-----------

At 10/22/2004 02:31 PM -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:

> > It may  be ridiculous 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.
>
>That is a somewhat misleading paraphrase of my position.
>
>I believe that they have specified a  new use for a codepoint which has been
>assigned  but not  used, and  I don't  see why  that should  be  treated any
>differently than a request for a new codepoint.
>
>Since they don't  have deployment yet, this seems like a  good time for them
>to fix  their specs  and remove the  unfortunate dependency.  It  seems like
>there are many ways  for them to do this, as there  is no real dependency on
>the semantics of the Host Address FEC.


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