Subject: [mpls] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:30:02 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol
	Author(s)       : T. Morin, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-05.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2010-11-26

This document lists a set of functional requirements for Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions for setting up point-to-
multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSP), in order to deliver
point-to-multipoint applications over a Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) infrastructure.  It is intended that solutions that
specify LDP procedures for setting up P2MP LSP satisfy these
requirements.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 17:40:43 +0100

Hello working group,

This draft, documenting requirements for mLDP, has been languishing for 
more than two years, even though it's been considered finished by its 
authors.  Its status, as given to the working group by JL Le Roux in 
March 2008, was "We consider that the draft is ready for WG last call" [1].

The version I've just posted is an editorial updates: boilerplate, 
references, a few nits (+ side effects of a different editor toolchain).

Can chairs consider making a WG LC on this draft ?

Thank you,

-Thomas

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg02056.html

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

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:52:45 -0500

> This draft, documenting requirements for mLDP, has been languishing for more
> than two years, even though it's been considered finished by its authors.

I think there's little point in advancing a requirements document after the
solutions document has already had its last call.  Why not just let this
requirements document expire quietly?

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:58:57 -0500

I'd agree with Eric %100 here. And if we delete that item from the WG work list, that is one less thing for the WG to complete before it can be shut-down (or repurposed).

	--Tom

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:22:13 +0100

Hi Eric,

> requirements document expire quietly?

A requirements is more than a place to host discussion on the target 
protocol until the corresponding specification work mature.

I think that finishing this work makes sense, because it is useful to 
document the background, the motivations and expectations for new 
protocol work. This is I think no less true when corresponding specs are 
close to publication.  The IETF has been getting better at doing so, but 
it does not mean we should be content with starting such work but not 
finishing it (even though I very easily understand that you could feel 
less needs than other, having all the background behind mLDP in mind 
already).

Thanks,

-Thomas

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:29:46 +0100

Hi Tom,

Thomas Nadeau:
> [...] if we delete that item from the WG work list, that is one less thing for the WG to complete [...]

Obviously yes.

But finalizing a document also is a way of completing a charter item.  ;-)

-Thomas

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:51:38 -0500

Thomas> I think that finishing this work makes sense, because it is useful to 
Thomas> document the background, the motivations and expectations for new 
Thomas> protocol work.

I don't really find this useful going forward, except perhaps for its
historical interest.  Once the specifications are done, it's not that
important to know what the expectations and motivations of the requirements
doc authors were two or three years before.

As the protocol matures and gains deployment, new requirements arise that
were not considered years ago, and old requirements may prove to be less
important than originally thought.  The old "requirements" document quickly
becomes obsolete.

That wouldn't be so bad if everyone recognized that the old requirements
document is just a snapshot of the thinking at the time that it was written.
However, experience shows that many years later folks who want to oppose
some innovation will say things like "The WG is not allowed to address this
issue, because it isn't in the requirements".  This can waste a lot of
everyone's time.  

If the requirements document does go forward, I think it should contain text
that makes it clear that it only documents a snapshot of the WG's view of
the requirements, and is not meant to constrain any future activity of the
WG.

It should also be made clear that the requirements doc is not part of the WG
charter, and every new technical innovation does not need to be preceded by
an updated requirements document.

BTW, if one were to look at the 1996/1997 discussions of MPLS
"requirements", one might be surprised to see how irrelevant some of those
requirements have become.