Subject: [mpls] Response to communication from MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance on RFC 3036 Proposed Revisions

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:50:59 +0100

Please find the response to the communication from the MPLS &
Frame Relay Alliance on RFC 3036 revisions included.

-------------------
To:
Rao Cherukuri
MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance
Technical Committee Chair

RE: Communication of October 7th 2004 to the MPLS working group in IETF
from the MPLS & Frame Alliance

Dear Rao,
thanks for the communication of October 7th 2004 from the MPLS &
Frame Relay Alliance on the deprecation of the Host Address FEC TLV
from the LDP specification as it is moved to Draft Standard.

The MPLS Working Group in the IETF is interested in establishing open
and trustful communication with the MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance. From
our point of view it is important that such communication is based on
a mutual understanding of the position of the organizations. We see
the MFA as a potentially very interesting and competent source for
requirements on the MPLS and GMPLS protocols, while the working groups
could facilitate extensions and improvements that meets these
requirements. It should also be agreed that the IETF is the only
organization that could make changes and extensions to the MPLS and
GMPLS protocols.

We would also like to point out that the process on how changes and
extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS protocols shall be managed is under
discussion in the IETF Routing Area, including how input for such
changes and extensions shall be received from sources outside
the IETF.

The MPLS Working Group is in the process of progressing the LDP
specification  from Proposed to Draft Standard.  The IETF procedure
for Draft Standards, requires that only those portions of a Proposed
Standard which have been implemented and used operationally may be
advanced.

The Host Address FEC was discussed at the MPLS working group meeting
in Washington DC on November 9th 2004. The consensus of the working
group is that the Host Address FEC will be removed. As far as we know
the Host Address FEC has not been used. Any information to the
contrary would be useful.

At the same time it was pointed at that it is possible for the MFA could
request a new FEC. If the MFA wanted to keep the same value for the this
new FEC as for the Host Address FEC, this could be done following the
process for changing MPLS and GMPLS protocols, which is currently under
discussion in the IETF Routing Area. The process involves sending an
Internet-Draft describing the problem, which will be reviewed by the
MPLS Working Group and the IESG before the WG considers the solution.
The MPLS WG chairs stand ready to help in the request process to meet
the need for a timely allocation of a new FEC to meet the MFA needs.

Loa Andersson and George Swallow
MPLS Working Group co-chairs

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                            [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls