Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:25:58 -0400

Scott,

	I think it is perfectly acceptable that ongoing work
on CR-LDP - both current and immediately anticipated - should
be targeted for Informational RFCs.  The focus needs to be on
what people who are writing the drafts are implementing and
it is clear that this is RSVP-TE in nearly every case.  I
believe most people will agree that this should remove any
perception that there is a requirement to define everything
twice in MPLS signaling.  In addition, if the CR-LDP drafts
are targeted for Informational status, this relieves the WG
of some of the distraction associated with having to do a
thorough review of each signaling protocols extension twice.

	Please see responses to your specific questions below.

	Thanks for putting the issues in a clear perspective!

Eric W. Gray
Systems Architect
Celox Networks, Inc.
[email-masked]
508 305 7214

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

the question has been asked about reclassifying a already published
RFC from Proposed Standard to Informational (i.e. de-standardization)

A/ I do not know of a case where this has been done
B/ RFC 2026 talks about moving to historic not info

(in my opinion moving to historc should be done where there is
a specific strong reason (or reasons) such as security (see RFC 1923
for an example of stating reasons).)

my own opinion is that it would set a very precedent to de-standardize at
all
and a very bad one to do such a short time after the RFC was published

I expect we can tell for sure in 4 or 5 years how a technology will be
received but I doubt that we can tell much in just 6 months

I think the more important question is about on-going CR-LDP work --
should be CR-LPD work be relegated to non-standards track?

specific questions:
A/ should IETF working group charters be modified to remove a requirement
   to work on CR-LPD technologies?

Yes.

B/ if there is CR-LDP work already in progress, what should happen to it?

It should be targeted for Informational RFC status.
Since these drafts are mostly of the form of - if you were going
to do the same thing using CR-LDP, this is how you would do it -
therefore, informational status makes more sense.

C/ if a working group requests publication of RFCs about CR-LDP
   technology on the standards track what should we do?

Use the usual procedure of IESG review.  Was the WG chartered to
do this work?  If so, how did this happen?  I think it is not
necessary to erect some type of contrived barrier as there will
be a sufficiently high natural barrier to inappropriate work of
this kind.

D/ if someone requests independent publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
   technology on the standards track (as permitted by RFC 2026) what
   should we do?

Again, this would fall under usual procedures.  The RFC Editor
would typically kick this to the IESG hence causing it to be
assigned to the appropriate working group (or not) as the IESG
determines to be appropriate.  As I understand it, the RFC
Editor is not obliged to publish anything as a standards track
RFC and will not unless satisfied that the right thing is being
done by doing so.

(I see no way for the IETF to refuse to publish CR-LDP related infor or
experimental RFCs - the IETF is not in the business of suppressing 
technology)

Scott

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:29:28 -0400

I like Scott's summary of the issues and choices and 100% agree with
Eric's response.

Assuming that we follow this one step further, and make future
CR-LDP work informational, shouldn't this decision be documented
somewhere?  Maybe in an updated CR-LDP applicability statement?

Is the issue of how to indicate this decision the reason that
reclassification of CR-LDP came up?

Lou