Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt]

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:22:13 +0100

On reading through the thread there are clearly two major
camps:

1) Those that support the proposition that
    draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt becomes a WG document.

2) Those that think that we should first better understand
    the MS-PW requirements, and choose a signaling protocol
    that matches those requirements.

Whilst there is strong support for the adoption of this
draft, there is far too much disagreement to conclude that
there is consensus for adoption.

Adopting the draft sets the expectation that RSVP will be
a WG preferred signaling method. We all know that unadopting
a protocol is in practice impossible, so if some other
approach turns out to be a better fit then we end up with
two WG supported signaling protocols.

On the other hand not adopting it, still leaves it on the
table as a viable candidate whilst we think about things.
This does not preclude the authors from advancing their
work design.

This latter approach seems the more conservative and is the
one that the chairs think that we should follow.

The issue then becomes one of how to move forward.

There are a number of candidate signaling protocols, and
we propose that we set a limit of three weeks before the
next IETF (i.e. -00 cutoff) for any further candidate
proposals to address the MS-PW signaling requirements.

Evaluating the candidate signaling protocols and testing the
consensus of the WG on the best way to proceed will be
the major work item at the next IETF.

Stewart/Danny

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3