Subject: Re: Initiating the process to take LDP to draft standard

From: Bob Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:32:18 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

About 2 months ago Loa and I sent the attached email requesting
information about LDP implementations as part of the process to
advance LDP (rfc3036) from proposed standard to draft standard.

We plan to present the information gathered about LDP implementations
at the MPLS WG session at the Minneapolis IETF metting.

If you are responsible for an LDP implementation and haven't already
provided information about your implementation, please do so by sending
it to:

    Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
    Bob Thomas <[email-masked]>

Thanks,
Loa and Bob

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:04:39 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: George Swallow <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
        Bob Thomas <[email-masked]>,
        Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Initiating the process to take LPD to draft standard

All,

We have been notified by the AD's that it is time to advance LDP
(RFC3036) from proposed standard to draft standard.

A formal requirement on an IETF protocol to advance to draft standard
is that there be at least two interoperable implementations of the
specification.

This is a request for information about LDP implementations.  Please
send the information to:

    Bob Thomas <[email-masked]>
    Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>

RFC3036 defines several modes of label distribution and allows an
implementation to support one or more of the modes. In addition, 
RFC3036 specifies optional behavior. Therefore we need information 
about the label distribution modes and optional behavior
supported by each implementation.  

We ask that the information supplied include which of the following
label distribution modes are supported:

       Advertisement             Retention      Control

    1. Downstream Unsolicited    Ordered        Liberal
    2. Downstream Unsolicited    Ordered        Conservative
    3. Downstream Unsolicited    Independent    Liberal
    4. Downstream Unsolicited    Independent    Conservative

    5. Downstream on Demand      Ordered        Liberal
    6. Downstream on Demand      Ordered        Conservative
    7. Downstream on Demand      Independent    Liberal
    8. Downstream on Demand      Independent    Conservative

as well as optional features, such as loop detection, optional
TLVs, etc., supported by the implementation.  Also, please feel free
to include any additional material believed to be relevant.

We also need information on interoperability testing and deployment
status in order to address the requirement of "two independent and
interoperable implementations".

Thanks,
Bob and Loa