[mpls] Confusion over my comments in MPLS WG meeting

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

During our discussion of draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework-02 I made
some comments at the mic.

The Etherpad records me as saying 
Adrian - Lets not hang up on word framework.

...and that was pretty much my message.

It felt to me that we were obsessing about the precise interpretation of the
document title rather than what it actually achieves. It is clear (to me) that
the document could equally have a title like "framework for the use of MPLS to
achieve foo" or a "framework to achieve foo in an MPLS network" and that that
would be obviously an MPLS document. On the other hand (and historically) a
framework is not an architecture: architectures are usually
solution-independent; frameworks are often descriptions of how to achieve
something from a number of building blocks. But if the word "framework" gets in
the way, simply use a different word.

In the meeting I then rambled into my beard wondering what would be the point of
an MPLS working group if we are not able to work on this document that I feel is
clearly an MPLS document (IRRC Hannes and Kireeti also considered this to be an
MPLS document). Someone may have misheard me as saying "close down MPLS".
Although Ross' departure might make this a fitting option, it was not what I was
saying.

I think George's point was that if someone thinks that there is value in a
generic (not limited to MPLS) framework, then they are welcome to write one, and
RTGWG would be a good venue.

Adrian