To: Brian Moore, Chair, ITU-T SG 13, Peter Wery, Chair, SG 15 From: Scott Bradner, co-AD IETF SUB-IP Area As documented in [3], in the middle of 2002 the IETF took a survey [5] of implementers of GMPLS constrained LSP signaling. Of 22 implementers, 21 implemented RSVP-TE [1], while only 3 implemented CR-LDP [2]. Because of the lack of implementations of CR-LDP and the lack of general interest in the IETF to do further work on CR-LDP the IETF has decided to focus on RSVP-TE as the basis for constraint-based LSP management from this time forward. The IETF has decided to keep CR-LDP on our standards track for the time being and to publish those CR-LDP related documents that were in the pipeline as Proposed Standards, but not to progress CR-LDP-related documents beyond the status of Proposed Standard. (The IETF progression is Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, and finally Standard.) In addition, the IETF will not undertake any new work on CR-LDP but will consider requests for publication of Informational RFCs from individuals or other organizations. The IETF is notifying other standards organizations of its decision regarding RSVP-TE and CR-LDP. We ask that those standards organizations, including the ITU-T, notify the IETF once they no longer have a need for normative references to CR-LDP. As an example, Y.1310 [4] recommends the use of CR-LDP alone in several sections (specifically Section 8.2.2, Appendix I.3, Appendix II.3, and. Appendix II.4). Thank you Scott Bradner [1] Awduche, D., et al. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels. IETF, RFC3209. December, 2001. [2] Jamoussi, B., et al. Constraint-Based LSP Setup Using LDP. RFC3212. IETF, January 2002. [3] Andersson, L., et al. The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols. IETF, RFC3468. February, 2003. [4] Y.1310. ITU-T, 2000. [5] http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/MPLS-SIGNALING-Implementation.txt