Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

"'Scott W Brim'" <sbrim@cisco.com> Thu, 06 March 2003 15:37 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:38:38 -0800
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:37:53 -0500
From: 'Scott W Brim' <sbrim@cisco.com>
To: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Message-ID: <20030306153753.GE2208@sbrim-w2k>
Mail-Followup-To: 'Scott W Brim' <sbrim@cisco.com>, Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 11:54:34AM -0800, Shahram Davari allegedly wrote:
> >> > It might be a good idea to require that all IETF protocols support
> >> > vendor-specific extensions, so that they could be used by 
> >other SDOs
> >> > and for experiments.
> >> 
> >> Ouch... draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
> >
> >But that doesn't solve the problem.  There are some protocol
> >requirements that can't be met just by extra semantics.
> >
> 
> Could you please give an example. 

Obviously, something that involves extensions to the protocol machinery.