Subject: Re: Concerns regarding the numerous layer violations in baseMPLS drafts

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:15:53 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

> I was under the impression that the purpose of the IETF was to
> engineer, not simply to generate documentation.

I thought so too, but at times I have to wonder.

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:56:39PM -0500, Eric Gray wrote:
> > I agree with Dan on all of his points.  Note that a proposal
> > to re-organize documents for what are essentially esthetic
> > reasons are completely inappropriate at this late date.

Eric, why the rush?  If it's broke, rushing the drafts through the
process won't fix it.

If it isn't broken, convince me.  What is being asked is: define what
procedures should be used (and not used) when and where.  If some
protocol tweaking is required, so be it.  This is more than aesthetics,
as Ben points out.

Also, the point is not to re-organise the documents.  I'll depart from
Ben in that treating IP specially in IETF documents is perfectly valid,
and need not be relegated to an appendix or new document.  However,
some new wording is needed (IMHO).

Kireeti.

---

From: Ben Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:17:27 -0800

> some new wording is needed (IMHO).

I'll concede this.  My real issue is the close intertwining of a 
specific protocol to the definition of MPLS.  If that were resolved
while keeping a single document, then I would be satisfied.

Ben