RE: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-02.txt: Tagged mode

["Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org>]

Eric,

I'd suggest that this distinction be made much more explicit: list the
raw mode in a "standards' track" RFC, move the tagged mode to an
"informational" RFC (or remove it entirely which is my, and several
other people's, preference) - if you don't do this, you will be creating
a whole lot of marketplace confusion and will neither be "facilitating
interoperability" over anything more than a very short timeframe nor
making "good standards" (as in "good standards need to describe how to
live with existing implementations of things, some of which are the
product of different traditions" - Harald Alvestrand). I am assuming
that Harald did not mean to endorse the practice of implementing, and
shipping in volume, implementations of early-stage IETF drafts, and then
using any momentum built up through those means to force inclusion of an
option in the final IETF standard (though that would be a "different
tradition", of course, from the good old IETF way of doing things).

Andrew Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-admin@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Rosen
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:21 PM
To: Rahul Aggarwal
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-02.txt: Tagged mode 



Eric> Given  that   the  purpose  of   IETF  standards  is   to
facilitate
Eric> interoperability, my suggestion would be  to leave tagged mode in
the
Eric> document, though perhaps as a "deprecated mode". 


Rahul> Just to clarify, what would 'deprecated' mean in this case..? 

It would  mean that tagged mode  is only there to  support legacy
equipment,
and new equipment should be designed to support raw mode. 


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3