I have no idea why, but we seem to get back to the topic of RTGWG scope
with the periodicity of almost exactly once a year :)
As explained in May, 2004 (see ), RTGWG works on the IP-only scenario
with a note that if we produce something that also works for MPLS/LDP we
will only be happier.
Anything that targets MPLS networks specifically, let alone requires
modifications of MPLS protocols, has to go to the MPLS WG. It is then the
job of the MPLS WG chairs to assess whether there's sufficient support
behind that piece of work, whether requirements are needed, etc.
Alia mentioned that we should have the documents reviewed in OSPF, IS-IS,
and MPLS WGs. That's the plan. Once we have the Basic FRR docs in a decent
shape, we'll take them there for review.
In the event that in future we (the community) see that a mechanism
produced within RTGWG can be somehow improved with a few extensions to
MPLS protocols, and it turns out that RTGWG is a better place to do that,
the RTGWG would ask the MPLS WG to work on the extensions, possibly
suggesting what they could look like, and definitely pointing to a
document that describes how they would be used.
With regards to draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute and
I am not aware of any requirements on the RTGWG side at this point for
the mechanisms in draft-shen-mpls-ldp-nnhop.
From what I remember, draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute described a mechanism
targeted for LDP MPLS networks, and hence MPLS would be the place to
discuss it, which I think is what happened. Iff the MPLS WG was really
excited about it and asked RTGWG to look at it with the IP-FRR glasses
on, I'm sure folks here would be happy to do that.
Hope this helps.
Rtgwg mailing list