Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery
draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-08

2002-10-03 - IESG discussion - note to WG chairs

please add a paragraph like the following in the introduction

    This document is truly informational. We expect that a standards
    track document will be developed in the future to describe   
    the subset of this document  which will fully meet the needs
    expressed in draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy.

also forgot to record randy's and alex's comments
> the IESG talked about draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk on the call today
>
> two issues came up:
>
> (from Alex Zinin)
> 1/ The document talks about some applications that may
>    require faster rerouting than IP routing provides, but
>    does not provide any info on what those are, what
>    rerouting requirements they have and why IP routing
>    is not enough. Would be nice if the doc had this info
>    for better reader's understanding of reasoning.   
>
> (from Randy Bush)
> 2/ how does this document relate to the requirements expressed in
>    draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-01.txt?  in what ways does
>    it not meet requirements?  in what ways does it exceed them,
>    and if any, why?
>
>    and, the sub-ip area architecture would seem to require a
>    requirements/protocol path from the tewg requirements, through
>    a common control and management plane, and then to the low-
>    level path mechanisms.  i was unable to follow this logical
>    path.  without it, how can one judge this work?
>
>
> Scott

forgot to record note to IESG in response to Randy's question

Scott (to be communicated to the IESG),

I prompted the MPLS list on Randys comment, there has only been
one response from one of the draft editors. My take on this is that
it is well understood by the working group that this is a document
that addresses MPLS issues and uses MPLS core technology only. MPLS
core technology as opposed to Generalized MPLS, i.e. shim labels, IP
routing information and it the improvements that could be reached in   
IP networking that is discussed in the document. It seems to us that
Randy makes an assumption that does not exists. Traceability of all
the work done in the mpls wg from requirements generated in the
te-wg and refined in the ccamp wg, while this is true for some
requirements it is by no means true for all work in the mpls wg.   
Nor is all te-wg requirements directed to other SubIP area wg's,
some are directed towards the mpls wg, but others are clearly directed
towards e.g. the routing area as such or wg's within the routing area.

It is therefore our intention to leave Randys comment without action.

The comment made by Alex will be addressed in an updated version of the
document to be released shortly.

/Loa

State Changes to Reading List                                      from AD Evaluation                                    by sob

State Changes to AD Evaluation                                    from New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    by sob

State Changes to New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    from New Version Coming                                by Scott Bradner

State Changes to New Version Coming                                from Reading List                                      by Scott Bradner