[mpls] Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[WG chair hat: on]


Hi Greg

> I am following the discussion, and I need a clarification. Does the latest proposal to remove the WG agreement to move this specification to Historic ones draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm/> approved for publication or actually is published? Otherwise, we enable two solutions that address the same case as it appears. Multiple solutions, as been demonstrated before, usually increase complexity and cost to a customer. Although the MNA-based solution is yet to be considered for WG adoption, I think that is a better approach to supporting the Alternate Marking in addition to the existing RFC 8957 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8957/> Synonymous Flow Label Framework. In my opinion, if the WG agreement on moving this specification to Historic when the condition is appropriate is removed, then it would be reasonable for the WG to re-evaluate the agreement to publish this document as a Standard.


First, the current agreement is to publish this as Proposed Standard.

Second, if the IESG insists that we remove the publication of the agreement, then it would certainly be necessary for the WG to reconsider how it would like to proceed. However, I am hopeful that the IESG will eventually come to agree that the will of the WG is sensible, rational, and deserving of support.

Regards,
T