Subject: Protocol Action: Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:56:26 -0400

The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts as
Proposed Standards:

o Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture <draft-ietf-mpls-arch-06.txt> 
o MPLS Label Stack Encoding <draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-07.txt> 

These documents are the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching
Working Group.  The IESG contact persons are Rob Coltun and Dave Oran.

Technical Summary
 
   This document describes the overall architecture of MPLS.  It
   defines the basic concepts of MPLS and establishes the elemental
   terminology.  It defines label operations and label semantics.  It
   defines strategies for such things as label distribution, and
   encapsulation.  Finally it describes potential applications of MPLS.

   The document does not define a protocol directly, but it is
   anticipated that several protocols will be developed and/or modified
   in order to support the architecture defined herein.  This document
   is intended to serve as a basis for making design choices for those
   anticipated protocols.

Working Group Summary

   During the development of MPLS many good ideas came forward.  Where
   approaches competed, there were times where application needs demanded
   that multiple approaches be incorporated in the architecture.  At
   other points difficult choices had to be made for the sake of
   interoperability.  This document captures the decisions of the
   workgroup and thus has served as a vehicle to both achieve and
   document workgroup consensus.

Protocol Quality

   These drafts have been reviewed by Rob Coltun. There are interoperable
   implementations of a number of the protocols that constitute the MPLS suite 
   of protocols (which have yet to be issued as RFCs).

   This document exists to improve the protocol quality of protocols
   built or modified to implement MPLS.  It represents a thorough
   professional job on the part of its authors and has captured the
   technical efforts of the workgroup.  But ultimately its quality will
   be judged by the protocols that proceed from it.