Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:02:12 -0400 (EDT)

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?
B/ if there is CR-LDP work already in progress, what should happen to it?
C/ if a working group requests publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
   technology on the standards track what should we do?
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?

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

Scott

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)

> RFC from Proposed Standard to Informational (i.e. de-standardization)

Here's my take on this (lemme see, which hat should I wear?)

On the one hand, what Eric calls "responsible protocol development"
has meant more drafts and more work for all (including this thread).

On the other hand, I'm not sure the IETF should get into the business
of choosing among protocols.  However, somebody has to.  In this case,
the market did.  Rephrasing Scott's original question: should the IETF
recognize this?  if so, how?

A simple answer is: move RSVP-TE to Draft Standard.  Let CR-LDP
langui^H^H^H^H^H^H, um, remain as PS.  It's probably time to start
thinking about advancing RFC 3209, anyway.

RFC 2026 says: "A specification ... for which *sufficient successful*
operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft
Standard" level."  (My emphasis.)

>    to work on CR-LPD technologies?

Yes.  More important, I would say that a goal in the form "Advance <foo>
to Draft Standard" is dangerous.  One might say, "Consider advancing
<foo> to DS" ... (see MPLS WG charter).

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

Target the work as Experimental.

>    technology on the standards track what should we do?

Publish as Experimental.

>    technology on the standards track (as permitted by RFC 2026) what

Publish as Experimental.

Kireeti.