[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
message to <listname>-email@example.com and ask to have the alternate
address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
automatically accepted. ]
In message <3E638325.D254FF0F@lucent.com>, Stephen Trowbridge writes:
> > I don't discus liasions, simply because it
> > was and is
> > my opinion that they are not in the picture then it comes to handling
> > changes to the
> > (g)mpls protocols.
> So, if another SDO thinks that an IETF protocol (possibly with extensions)
> would be a good solution to their problem, they would ask for this how?
They would bring the topic up on the appropriate WG mailing list and
submit an internet-draft.
Your prior example of ASON is analogous IETF creating document that
change the underlying SONET model and creating extensions to SONET
outside of ITU (for example: using the loosely defined or undefined
portion of the SONET overhead) specificly to support IP and then
claiming that it was for IP so ITU should just accept it without
questioning it. There is no reason for the IETF to accept ASON as a
requirement for MPLS/GMPLS.