[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

To: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
From: "'Scott W Brim'" <sbrim@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:37:53 -0500
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET
In-reply-to: <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDEB03D61@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca>
Mail-followup-to: 'Scott W Brim' <sbrim@cisco.com>,Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org,mpls@UU.NET
References: <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDEB03D61@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 11:54:34AM -0800, Shahram Davari allegedly wrote:
> >> > It might be a good idea to require that all IETF protocols support
> >> > vendor-specific extensions, so that they could be used by 
> >other SDOs
> >> > and for experiments.
> >> 
> >> Ouch... draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
> >
> >But that doesn't solve the problem.  There are some protocol
> >requirements that can't be met just by extra semantics.
> >
> 
> Could you please give an example. 

Obviously, something that involves extensions to the protocol machinery.

References:
- RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
  - From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>

Prev by Date: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Next by Date: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Previous by thread: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Next by thread: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread