Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[Rob Coltun <rcoltun@redback.com>]

Hi John,
    valid question -  I don't think this is true for BGP. There are extensions
to BGP that the working group has adopted.
Which TE drafts are you referring to?

We've said from the beginning that we didn't want to define new "data plane"
functionality for technologies where the data plane is being defined elsewhere
- whereas some of the functions aren't really new, and in cases might be de-facto standard
we recognize that certain "data plane" functionality are beyond the scope
of the IETF to define - so this keeps us more in line with (in this case) the ITU.

Note that IETF has defined the
MPLS data plane - if some other body were to define new functionality
for the MPLS data plane it would certainly cause confusion in the industry.
This standard stuff is certainly not easy.

Is it really that big an issue to just keep them in a separate RFC?

thanks,
---rob


John Drake wrote:

> Rob,
>
> Why isn't the proposed disclaimer sufficient?  If you look in the base TE
> drafts, for example, there are codepoints defined for use by specific,
> named, vendors.  I think the same is also true for BGP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
>
> All,
>     despite the heated arguments I think the discussion is important to
> have.
>
> I suggest that instead of  tagging non/pre-standard items in the current
> drafts
> that they be put into a separate Informational document  - this is the
> cleanest thing to do.
> We (the IETF) do have a tradition of publishing company proprietary
> protocols
> but not as standard track documents.
>
> thanks,
> ---rob