The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols
draft-andersson-mpls-sig-decision-03

I didn't think the document was self-consistent; parts of it said "the IETF has decided", parts of it said "the MPLS WG has decided".

as far as I could tell from the discussion and my understanding, the MPLS WG can make a recommendation (in the form of this I-D), and the IESG must either determine that there is IETF consensus behind the recommendation (which would require an IETF Last Call, which this has had, and determination by the IESG that the result was acceptable), or determine on its own that the IESG should accept the recommendation (and document that decision by recommending that the document should be published).

the document should consistently reflect that decision-making path.

2002-11-02 - note to chairs

from the IESG discussion on the decision ID

basically the ID needs to be changed to make it clear that
        1/ this was a decision in the MPLS WG
                not the entire IETF - even though there was a IETF last call
        2/ that the no new work on CR-LDP is within the MPLS WG not   
                the IETF
        3/ that it is a decision to not start new work - a number
          of IESGers were confused by the words about discontinuing
          work and yet publishing the docs in progress - so
          its easier to say - will not start any new work in
          the WG   
so - whereever it talks about doing or not doing anything be sure to make 
it MPLS-WG specific

e.g.
change
"No further updates of the CR-LDP related RFCs, beyond proposed standard
are planned."

to
"No further updates of the CR-LDP related RFCs, beyond proposed standard
are planned in the MPLS working group."

a number of IESG members were worried that a precident would be set for
a WG to control IETF activity outside of the WG

2002-09-18 - requet to bublishj as info RFC
This document represents the view of the MPLS working group chairs
and, in their view, the consensus of the MPLS working group.
Publication this document as an informational RFC will document the
decision to focus the WG effort on RSVP-TE as signaling protocol for
TE applications and not to start any new work on CR-LDP in the IETF.