RE: rfc2385

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 11:36
> To: Steve Bellovin; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: rfc2385
> 
> --On torsdag, april 03, 2003 19:45:27 -0500 Steve Bellovin 
> <smb@research.att.com> wrote:
> 
> > Grepping the RFC directory shows that LDP (RFC 3036) 
> mandates 2385, too.
> > Does this change what we want to do?  Or is LDP "close enough" to BGP
> > that the same reasoning will apply?  (3446 also suggests 2385.  This
> > spreading use is the reason I don't want to promote 2385.)
> 
> LDP has far less installed base, and its standards track 
> progress has been EOLed by the WG. 

That is not correct. The CR-LDP has been EOL-ed, but not the base LDP. 

> So we're unlikely to face the prospect of Draft status for LDP.
> 
So I would suspect that base LDP may still want to move to DS
later, when also MPLS and such want to advance.

Maybe Alex and I should check with MPLS WG.

> that said, it increases the reasons why the statement "Don't use TCP-MD5" 
> should be made in such a way that people checking out its 
> status will find it.
> 
Yep!

Bert
>                 Harald
>