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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I wonder if the one way of looking at the question si to ask whether the 
IETF last call on this document was sufficient clear that the document 
will become historic when the MNA solution for the problem is approved 
as an RFC, without any further last calls about that transition.

My guess is that the LC was not really sufficiently clear about that, 
but that a two week IETF call to confirm taht would then seem to allow 
the approval of the document with the transition included.

Yours,

Joel

On 9/9/2024 11:04 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> [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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]