The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

> All,
>
> (taking the chair hat off)
>
> I agree with Scott here. This one of the rasons why we have
> put effort on writing the (g)mpls-change-process.
	
	All things being equal, if the change process
was followed, I think the situation would be
quite different here.  Unfortunately, things aren't
equal because they (ITU) didn't follow the process,
and so we are in this situation.  This also begs the
question of will this happen again in the future?

	I wonder if there is some way to rewind the process
within the ITU and have the document start over there
and go through the liaison and g/mpls-change-process? Not
being an ITU process geek, I have no idea.

> IETF should have conrol over the MPLS protocols, "non-MPLSing"
> T-MPLS just makes this harder. Insisting in renaming would
> just feed the trolls that want split out an ITU-MPLS.

	If T-MPLS is a true sub-set of MPLS then the
naming is not so much of an issue IMHO. That is, if
T-MPLS is simply a (configurable) subset of functionality.
However, it is clear that the existing document as
well as recently announced amendments to it, are
straying from what I defined as a subset.  In particular,
the OAM as defined is *completely* different from what
the IETF specifications stipulate, and there are
reserved labels w/o semantics.  In the case of the latter,
there have been recent follow-on contributions that
are taking a stab at defining these reserved labels, and
these are troubling, especially based on the discussion of
interop. that was voiced earlier. In this case, I
think it is damaging to call the specification
"*-MPLS" because it forms the basis for an "ITU-MPLS"
that can then not only wildly diverge from what we
have defined here (and what is deployed and certainly
working!), but also be confused with said deployed version
in the marketplace.

> (hat back on - my kids tells me I looks ridiculous in a hat ;) )

	I won't comment on that. *)

	--Tom


>
> but anyway please feel free to have opinions on the (re-)naming
> issue.
>
> /Loa
>
> Scott W Brim wrote:
>> 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
>
>
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
>
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>                                            loa@pi.se

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