Re: [mpls] Last Call comments on ldp upstream label allocation

[Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco.com>]

RFC3468> Consequently we need to keep CR-LDP referenceable, i.e., on the
RFC3468> standards track, for the foreseeable future.  The implication of this
RFC3468> is not that we need to progress it further, or need to undertake
RFC3468> further work in the area.  One implication however is that standards
RFC3468> organizations which reference the document, need to be notified of
RFC3468> our decision so that they (at their own pace) can change their
RFC3468> references to more appropriate documents.

Eric> I would interpret this as implying that the IETF should not be
Eric> creating normative references to CR-LDP documents.  (If we expect
Eric> other organizations to be changing their references to the CR-LDP
Eric> documents, we shouldn't be creating new references to them.)  Note
Eric> that RFC 3468 explicitly calls out RFC 3472 as one of the deprecated
Eric> documents.

Rahul> It is not clear that we have a problem with the draft's reference of
Rahul> the "Interface ID TLV" (as defined in rfc3472).  This is because
Rahul> rfc3468 makes it very clear that CR-LDP is "referenceable, i.e., on
Rahul> the standards track, for the foreseeable future", and thus there
Rahul> should be no problem for us to reference rfc3472.

It seems to me to be quite clear that the intention is for the CR-LDP
documents to continue to be "referenceable" by pre-3468 documents, and that
normative references by post-3468 IETF drafts are not "appropriate".

If you're determined for some reason to keep this normative reference to
CR-LDP, I suppose my next step is to ask the WG chairs for a ruling on
this.  WG chairs, do you have an opinion on this process issue?

Your proposed resolutions to my other comments are fine.