RE: draft-kawakami-mpls-lsp-vlan-00.txt

[Genadi Velev <velev@panasonic.de>]

Hi all,

as I can see, 2 different issues raised regarding this draft. (please see
inline...)

1) proper WG for this draft

> One high-level comment, and one addressing the issue that Dimitri
> raised;
>
> The CCAMP WG deals (mostly) with protocol extensions that are *common*
> across a variety of technologies, such as GMPLS signaling and routing,
> and LMP.  There are cases of doing specific technology work, such as
> SDH, only because there is no WG for that work.  The WG chairs would
> have to consult with their ADs to figure out the right home for this
> work that seems to me to be specific.
>
Kireeti,
thanks for your clarification. You are right that this technology is a
specific one, but OTOH as Dimitri pointed out it fits perfectly to the group
of Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) interfaces.
I would like to ask you and Loa/George to help us to find the proper WG for
the draft!

2) employment of CR-LDP

> > thus i am bit surprised this i-d proposes the use
> > of cr-ldp, for instance:
>
> Any i-d can propose anything :-)  If it is to be a WG doc, then
> the CR-LDP parts will have to be reviewed.  If it is to be Standards
> Track, the CR-LDP parts will have to be removed -- if they stay in,
> the doc will at best be put on Info track.
>
Kireeti and Dimitri,
I didn't know about the existence of MPLS WG's consensus and RFC 3468. Now,
after your valuable comments, I realize that we - the authors of the ID -
should reconsider the employment of CR-LDP. Since 2 protocols are proposed
to setup LSP (LDP and CR-LDP), it would be possible in a future version of
the ID to specify the use of LDP only.

Our initial intention of the ID was, if the ID is accepted as WG doc, that
it can become an informational RFC, not a standard one.

thanks,
Genadi