Re: Comments on Applicability Statement

[Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>]

> It shouldn't, in my estimation, make comments as to how something untested
> might be applicable, or highlight something tangential (such as intserv,

 ..

> What do others think?

  Agreed.

> >    Regarding your comment on point (A), what you rephrased reflects
> > today's environment.  Given that RSVP-TE and CR-LDP are intended to be
> > functionally similar, as described in their respective Applicability
> > Statements, please explain the significance or the relevance.


> > > (A) In Section 1, 2nd paragraph, add the following after the 2nd sentence:
> > > 
> > > Another signaling protocol that performs similar functions is CR-LDP, the
> > > applicability of which is described in
> > > G. Ash, M.K. Girish, E. Gray, B. Jamoussi, and G. Wright,
> > >    "Applicability Statement for CR-LDP", work in progress, July 2000.
> > 
> > 
> > In similar, do you mean that CR-LDP has been "developed and deployed in
> > scale, and in a multi-vendor environment", or do you mean "Another
> > signalling protocol that intends to perform similar functions is CR-LDP
> > [CR-LDP-REF], though it hasn't been deployed in scale".

  I posit that CR-LDP has not been deployed in scale.

  -alan