[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
when writing the draft we briefly discussed whether to mention pwe3 or not,
I gather that ther were different reasons for different people not to.
and ccamp wg-chairs and the SubIP ADs had discussed the process for some
on my part I did not want to delay publication by throwing this on the pwe3
chair just minutes before the prublication.
I also think that there is an issue that pwe3 is not squarely within what
we define as (G)MPLS technology, pwe3 is an end to end technology and that
is why it is in transport.
This could be splitting hairs by an axe, we took the decision to publish
to get the type of reaction you given us here. The draft is out there to be
If the pwe3 were to take up those extensions to ldp today, we would ask for
problem description and requirments, on my part it is not my intention
don't think of any of the other authors) to retro-engineer existing work to
fit the process.
You might have noticed that I gave Jerry Ash the same answer when he
that the mpls should take up work on header compression over mpls. But
work is not accepted or rejected yet, give us as much of the information as
possible in the format we want to have in the change process. Though he has
a certain freedom here.
pwe3 in specifying extensions to ldp, would be a "protocol specifying
group", but note that this does not automatically transmorgraphies it into a
(g)mpls technology working group.
If you suggest that the pwe3 wg should be included as one of the (g)mpls
working groups, then I suggest that you give us text to be discussed and
if a consensus is reached included in the draft.
Personally I would like to hear the transport ADs and pwe3 wg chairs opinion
Strictly I don't think we can require that people follow the process until
the IESG has OKed it, but as a wg chair I can clearly have an opinion on how
and where work on protocols specified by the mpls wg are done and how the
mpls wg takes on new work.
To avoid cross-posts I suggest that we taken the discussion on the
draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt on the mpls list :). We will
time in both the mpls and ccamp working group meetings in SF to discuss
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I assume that the mpls and ccamp lists are the appropriate places for
discussion of this draft. I also included the pwe3 list, since this
also affects the work in that WG. I apologize for the crossposts to
those of you on more than one of these lists (including myself).
Perhaps once the discussion has started, we can pick just one place to
My initial reaction on reading your draft was that I didn't see any
discussion of the pwe3 WG, which as you know is specifying extensions
to RFC 3036. For the purposes of your draft, would pwe3 be classified
as a "protocol specifying working group"? And is it your intention
that the current work in the pwe3 WG be approved by the "requirement
evaluating working group" prior to its documents being published as
RFCs? Or would this be grandfathered in as already having been
chartered by the IESG?
At 2/14/2003 06:43 AM -0500, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
Title : MPLS and GMPLS Change Process
Author(s) : L. Andersson
Filename : draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Pages : 11
Date : 2003-2-13
This memo describes the process through which individuals, working
groups and external standards bodies can influence the development of
MPLS and GMPLS standards. With respect to standardization, this
process means that (G)MPLS extensions and changes can be done through
the IETF only, the body that created the (G)MPLS technology. The
IETF will not publish a (G)MPLS technology extension RFC outside of
the processes described here.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
In the body type:
NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the