The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Apr> msg00099



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] consolidated response to Q12/15 on T-MPLS

  • From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:27:46 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;rv:1.8) Gecko/20051201 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
  • X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,152,1144036800"; d="scan'208"; a="87094137:sNHT30500720"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2006 15:27:47.0512 (UTC)FILETIME=[A4033B80:01C667B3]

On 04/24/2006 11:13 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau allegedly wrote:
> 
>     There were no comments to the contrary as
> far as I can tell. That is, no one commented
> on the list or at the meeting that leaving
> MPLS in the name as okay. I did however, hear
> at least 3 responses to explicitly strike MPLS
> from the name.

I spoke against insisting on renaming, although maybe not on this list.
 So far the ITU-T's stated intention is to define a subset of MPLS, not
to create something new.  See their liaison: "The intent of these
Recommendations is not to change MPLS but rather to identify a subset of
existing MPLS necessary and sufficient to provide connection-oriented
packet transport."  There is no need or advantage to asking them to take
"MPLS" out of their name until it is clearly no longer a subset.  That
will depend on how the current discussion goes.  Let's not create the
future we are concerned about.

You bring up trademark.  That's unrelated -- it's not the IETF and the
ITU, it's between the IETF and whoever trademarked something with "MPLS"
in it.

Thanks ... Scott

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