The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"
Stewart, If SG15's position is "The assumption we have made is that when deploying T-MPLS for this purpose it will be deployed on a network that is disjoint from any already deployed IP/MPLS network." then they should explicitly state a limitation in the scope section of the new Recommendation. I recall several times when as editor I was forced to add such limitations. Something like "The protocol described in the Recommendation shall not be deployed in any existing IP/MPLS network, nor shall it interwork in any fashion with such a network." Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 22:55 Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1" The IETF response to our liaison of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt was sent as a word document. To make sure that all members of PWE3 are able to read it, I have extracted the substantive text as ASCII. I have major concerns about the assumption of disjoint operation since I cannot see how the T-MPLS protocol prevents this. I request WG input on how to respond to this liaison. - Stewart _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|