Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] Early review of two mpls working group documents

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:39:19 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:13 PM

> Working group,
>
> "A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label
>   Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's
>   Transport Network Recommendations."
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-03.txt

I do NOT think that this I-D should progress.

It could have been very useful, as when a new term has been introduced, such as
PST or SPME.  There are, of course, definitions of such terms but buried in
non-obvious places, with the obsoleted terms still present in a Standards Track
RFC, with no obvious place to look for what is now called what.

Except, of course, there is an obvious place to look.  Lo and behold,
  A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label
       Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's
                    Transport Network Recommendations.

What could be more obvious a place to look; trouble is, the necessary
definitions are not there.

There is still hope.  Going forward, this I-D could still act as a repository
for terminology, old, new and the relationships between them, but for this to
work, it MUST NOT become an RFC for then it is set in concrete, the way obsolete
terms have been already set in concrete is some MPLS RFC.

Rather, this should stay an I-D and be updated whenever there is a significant
change in terminology and only when we are at the end of the process of
producing the first cut at MPLS-TP, only then should it be turned into an RFC.
So, yes it should become an RFC but no way should it do so yet.

Tom Petch