Draft: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-survey2002-00.txt Reviewer: Black_David@emc.com Review Date: Tuesday 2/21/2006 7:49 PM CST IETF LC Date: 16 Feb 2006 Summary: Right track but has open issues. This draft also has a process issue that affects the main LDP draft. Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026 says the following about the interoperability requirement for advancing to draft standard: The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard level only if those options or features are removed. Applying this criterion to the survey draft, Section 1.1 says: At By Cn indicates: - A responders implemented the feature and tested it against another independent implementation (t); So, for a feature to remain at Draft Standard, A must be at least 2. Unfortunately, there are three instances where A is 1: 1t 1y 1n IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 1t 5y 6n Experimental TLV 1t 5y 6n Experimental Msg While I'm not concerned about the experimental value ranges - I think those are good things to have and don't need to be subject to the 2 interoperable implementations test, the IPv6 address TLV looks like a potential problem: 1t 1y 1n(1u 4r 1x) IPv6 Transport Addr TLV 3.5.2 Unless another implementation can be found, it appears that RFC 2026 would require deleting IPv6 support in order to advance to Draft Standard. That would be unfortunate.