Subject: AW: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

From: Hummel Heinrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:12:33 +0200

Well spoken.
Additionally, all those who do not care for CR-LDP have hardly contributed in the past nor will they contribute
in the future to extend routing protocols for the sake of CR-LDP. This sweat is up to the CR-LDP supporters.
It is not honest to complain about the burden carried by the others.
Heinrich 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: avri [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2002 15:26
Cc: MPLS wg
Betreff: Re: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

This seems to me a very strange proposal.  And in fact seems to be
a perversion of the IETF standards process as i understand it.

If things are as argued, then RSVP-TE will progress to draft standard
and then to standard, while CR-LDP remains a proposed standard.  If
it languishes long enough in the proposed state, without significant
deployment or utility, then it would seem appropriate to transition it
to historic at some point in the future.

Taking it to informational at this point seems a fairly blatant political
move without technical merit.  At best it is an administrative sleight
of hand that could strange repercussions as a precedent.  Is the IETF
going to embark next on an effort to define all protocol duplication
out of existence by voting on which alternative to make informational?

I would suggest (as voting is not something I thought the IETF did) that
both protocols remain as ps. If CR-LDP withers on the vine because it has
no utility, so be it.  Voting to change its status seems inappropriate to
me.

a.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:10:28 -0400

Heinrich,

This is not really correct.  I (and others) have spent quite a bit of time 
to ensure that functionality added to one protocol is added to the 
other.  The reason for this has been so that the technology can advance 
without having to get mired down in the protocol wars that we went through 
in the early days of MPLS.

At this point, I think both protocols deliver equivalent 
functionality.  Both protocols have their plusses and minuses that can be 
argued for as long as folks have energy.  But IMO, we're at the point where 
differences in robustness and scalability are now in the domain of the 
quality of implementation and not resulting of the base protocol.

Going forward, I think that having just one protocol to deliver a piece of 
functionality so that we don't have to duplicate work is goodness.  Based 
on the GMPLS implementation survey, I think that GMPLS-CR-LDP should move 
forward as informational.  I think that reclassifying CR-LDP to 
informational (or historic, if that's the right procedural thing) also 
makes sense based on market acceptance.

Lou

---

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Jul 2002 00:12:42 +0000

nice summary.

I'd agree that given the lack of market acceptance of CR-LDP it would be
good to focus effort on RSVP-TE from here on in.  I can't see the value
in spending time writing drafts that will never be deployed - let alone
implementing those drafts with no SP requirement to do so.

Giles

-- 
=================================================================
Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
=================================================================