The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <ewgray@mindspring.com>]

Juha,

    I know this.  Many people are frustrated with the amount
of control that the authors (and specifically the editors) have
in the I-D process.  However, that is the process.

    You raise issues during last call, the authors "address"
them and you have another shot at raising issues with the
way that the author addressed them.  If your raising of an
issue the second time does not get a lot of support, then -
I believe - the WG chair will conclude that the existing
resolution is supported by a rough consensus.  As it now
stands, that is the way it is done.

    If we are going to change the process, then I suspect we
will jeopardize the stability of all I-Ds in progress.  I remind
you of the occasionally recurring issue with field-ordering
and word boundaries in RSVP-TE.  There are many other
such issues.

    Once again, I plea that closure (and stability) is a better
goal than perfection.

--
Eric Gray

Juha Heinanen wrote:

> Eric Gray writes:
>
>  >     What goes against the I-D process is the idea of trying
>  > to word-smith an I-D a full year after last call.
>
> just set the record straigth, i brought the problems up more than a
> full year ago when i believe we still were in the last call process:
>
>   From: Juha Heinanen <jh@lohi.eng.telia.fi>
>   Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:45:52 +0200
>   Subject: bridging over mpls
>   ...
>   the mpls label stack encoding i-d should be edited to explicitly allow
>   mpls packets to carry anything.
>
> -- juha