Subject: a step towards consensus on mpls signaling protocol

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:15:46 +0200

All,

George and I as the chairs would like to offer our view of where we
see consensus forming on the recent discussion of signaling protocols.
We do this to allow further comments before making a final decision on
the matter.  Please make any comments to the list prior to September 7.

The current discussion on MPLS signaling protocols shows that:

  - There is a clear consensus on that the MPLS WG needs to focus
    its efforts on RSVP-TE as protocol for traffic engineering
    signaling and that the WG charter should be updated accordingly.

  - There is a clear majority for discontinuing work on CR-LDP.
    However, there is no IETF process to "de-standardize" an existing
    proposed standard that would apply in this situation. Thus
    CR-LDP will remain a proposed standard.

To this end:

  - Existing WG drafts related to or updating/changing CR-LDP will
    be progressed according to normal procedures.

  - the Working Group will take on no new WG documents related to
    CR-LDP.

  - A message will be sent to the relevant standards organizations
    notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS signaling protocols.

Loa and George

-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           [email-masked]
WWW             www.utfors.se

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:23:53 -0700

>>     CR-LDP will remain a proposed standard.

Send it to historic, a la RFC 3166/3167, or someone will make me
implement it.

>>     notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS signaling protocols.

Again, can we send it to historic or is there some procedural
(or other reason) not to do this?

Dave

---

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:17:42 -0400

Loa - 

I think you're doing the right thing going with only RSVP-TE.  But as
for continuing the CR-LDP work...why?  It can certainly be continued as
individual contributions, but why put the burden on the group to
manage/review additions to something we as a group have decided isn't in
our future?   Personal opinion is that current CR-LDP work be moved to
individual contributions outside of the WG activities.  

- Matt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:06:52 +0200

Matt,

here are the mpls wg list of documents that we are talking about,
all are through wg last call and has been reviewed by wg chairs.

Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP
draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-07.txt

Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with
LSP Feedback in CR-LDP
draft-ietf-mpls-te-feed-04.txt

Fault Tolerance for LDP and CR-LDP
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ft-04.txt

Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol
Query Message Description
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-query-04.txt

All of them are in or about to be sent to the IESG for review.
Point here is that most of them has parts that address ldp (i.e.
non cr-ldp issues) that we want to progress. My take on this is
that there are much less work for the wg to follow "normal
procedures" for those documents, and that this would not put
us in a situation that is different from what we have  for the
existing rfcs (proposed) that is based on cr-ldp.

Of course there are lots of thing that may happen down the road.
If one of those documents gets sent back to the wg (authors) by
the IESG because a new revision is needed, it is up to the authors
or wg to take a decision on how to handle this.

There are also some possible impact on the mibs, that I don't
have a clear picture of - any of the mib-authors that has a view
on the impact of this decision.

Then there are documents that is owned by other working groups,
those working groups needs to make their own decisions.

Of course this my opinion, if there is support for "individualize"
the existing cr-ldp, first thing we've to do is to make sure that
we have a defined procedure to do so.

/Loa

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:14:16 +0200

David,

the main argument not to make historic has been that there are
organizations  outside the IETF that reference the cr-ldp spec.
Re-classifying it would cause problems for those organizations.
By telling them that it is our intention not to further progress
the cr-ldp, we given them time to revisit this issue and take the
actions they need.

/Loa

---

From: Joan Cucchiara <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:10:20 -0400

Loa,

I believe that both
draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-03.txt and
draft-ietf-mpls-te-mib-08.txt fall into this same
category.  These MIBs have gone through working
group last call(s) and IESG review
process.  They are being updated by mib co-authors.

   -Thanks,
    Joan

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:16:48 -0700

Again, my concern is that is if it is left as proposed it will
wind up on an RFP somewhere, and folks will be forced to
implement it in order to respond. It's already happened.

Dave

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:16:48 -0700

Dave

---

From: "Art King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:06:37 -0700

Greetings,

I hope this is the right group to address this inquiry to.

I like the idea that two competing (approximately)
signaling protocols are being reduced to one.

Does this imply or is there a move to eliminate one or the
other of the route distribution protocols (OSPF-TE and
ISIS-TE) to further simply implementation and interop?

Regards,

Art

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "mpls wg" <[email-masked]>; "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>; "George
Swallow" <[email-masked]>; "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: a step towards consensus on mpls signaling protocol

---

From: satish dattatri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:37:30 -0700 (PDT)

Art,
Both ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE are deployed today.
I don't think the same reduction magic works for the
IGPs ;-)
Satish

--- Art King <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >> >>>    However, there is no IETF process to
> "de-standardize" an
> existing
> > >> >>>    notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS
> signaling
> protocols.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---

From: "Art King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:41:51 -0700

Satish,

OK, wasn't sure with the extension work coming up for
multi-area TE would force a choice on all of us due
to depth of telecom winter we're in...

Thanks,

Art