Network Working Group L. Andersson
Request for Comments: 3468 Consultant
Category: Informational G. Swallow
Cisco Systems
February 2003
Network Working Group L. Andersson
Request for Comments: 3468 Consultant
Category: Informational G. Swallow
Cisco Systems
February 2003
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols
多协议标签交换（MPLS）工作组关于MPLS信令协议的决定
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document documents the consensus reached by the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group within the IETF to focus its efforts on "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)-TE: Extensions to RSVP for Label-Switched Paths (LSP) Tunnels" (RFC 3209) as the MPLS signalling protocol for traffic engineering applications and to undertake no new efforts relating to "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)" (RFC 3212). The recommendations of section 6 have been accepted by the IESG.
本文件记录了IETF内多协议标签交换（MPLS）工作组达成的共识，即将其工作重点放在“资源预留协议（RSVP）-TE：标签交换路径（LSP）隧道的RSVP扩展”（RFC 3209）作为用于流量工程应用的MPLS信令协议，不承担与“使用标签分发协议（LDP）的基于约束的LSP设置”（RFC 3212）相关的新工作。IESG已接受第6节的建议。
Conventions used in this document
本文件中使用的公约
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照BCP 14、RFC 2119[RFC2119]中的说明进行解释。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ................................................. 2
1.1 Objectives of document ................................. 2
1.2 Nomenclature ........................................... 2
2. Background ................................................... 3
3. CCAMP implementation study ................................... 4
4. MPLS Working Group discussion ................................ 4
4.1 Phase 1 ................................................ 4
4.2 IETF process ........................................... 5
4.3 Relationship to other standards organizations .......... 5
4.4 Phase 2 ................................................ 5
5. MPLS Working Group consensus ................................. 7
6. Recommendation to the IESG ................................... 8
7. Security Considerations ...................................... 8
8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 8
9. References ................................................... 8
9.1 Normative .............................................. 8
9.2 Informative ............................................ 9
10. Authors' Addresses ...........................................10
11. Full Copyright Statement .....................................11
1. Introduction ................................................. 2
1.1 Objectives of document ................................. 2
1.2 Nomenclature ........................................... 2
2. Background ................................................... 3
3. CCAMP implementation study ................................... 4
4. MPLS Working Group discussion ................................ 4
4.1 Phase 1 ................................................ 4
4.2 IETF process ........................................... 5
4.3 Relationship to other standards organizations .......... 5
4.4 Phase 2 ................................................ 5
5. MPLS Working Group consensus ................................. 7
6. Recommendation to the IESG ................................... 8
7. Security Considerations ...................................... 8
8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 8
9. References ................................................... 8
9.1 Normative .............................................. 8
9.2 Informative ............................................ 9
10. Authors' Addresses ...........................................10
11. Full Copyright Statement .....................................11
This document documents the MPLS Working group consensus to continue to develop RFC 3209 [RFC3209] as the signalling protocol for MPLS signaling for Traffic Engineering applications.
本文件记录了MPLS工作组关于继续开发RFC 3209[RFC3209]作为流量工程应用MPLS信令的信令协议的共识。
This document also documents the MPLS working group consensus to not undertake any new work related to RFC 3212 [RFC3212], e.g., there are no plans to progress RFC 3212 beyond proposed standard. No other actions are taken relative the document status of RFC 3212 [RFC3212] or RFCs that specify extensions to RFC 3212.
本文件还记录了MPLS工作组的共识，即不开展与RFC 3212[RFC3212]相关的任何新工作，例如，没有计划将RFC 3212推进到拟定标准之外。对于RFC 3212[RFC3212]或指定RFC 3212扩展的RFC的文档状态，未采取任何其他操作。
Section 6 summarizes the consensus of the MPLS working group on this issue. This consensus has been accepted by the IESG. All other sections are documentation of the consensus process.
第6节总结了MPLS工作组在这个问题上的共识。这一共识已被IESG接受。所有其他章节都是协商一致进程的文件。
This document uses the term "CR-LDP related working group drafts" to refer to a group of Internet Drafts that specify changes or extensions to [RFC3212] and the term "CR-LDP related RFCs" to discuss the group of RFCs that specify the protocol and the applicability of [RFC3212].
本文件使用术语“CR-LDP相关工作组草案”指的是一组互联网草案，其中规定了[RFC3212]的变更或扩展；使用术语“CR-LDP相关RFC”讨论了一组RFC，其中规定了[RFC3212]的协议和适用性。
The CR-LDP related working group drafts are:
"Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol
Query Message Description" [QUERY]
"Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with Label Switched
Path Feedback in Constraint Based Label Distribution
Protocol [FEED]
"Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP" [UNNUM]
"Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)" [FT]
"Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions" [RFC3472]
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for
SONET and SDH Control" [SONET]
"Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control" [G709]
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions to
Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features" [SDH]
The CR-LDP related working group drafts are:
"Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol
Query Message Description" [QUERY]
"Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with Label Switched
Path Feedback in Constraint Based Label Distribution
Protocol [FEED]
"Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP" [UNNUM]
"Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)" [FT]
"Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions" [RFC3472]
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for
SONET and SDH Control" [SONET]
"Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control" [G709]
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions to
Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features" [SDH]
CR-LDP related RFCs
CR-LDP相关RFC
The CR-LDP related RFCs are: RFC 3212, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP" RFC 3213, "Applicability Statement for CR-LDP" RFC 3214, "LSP Modification Using CR-LDP"
CR-LDP相关RFC为：RFC 3212，“使用LDP的基于约束的LSP设置”RFC 3213，“CR-LDP的适用性声明”RFC 3214，“使用CR-LDP的LSP修改”
No further updates of the CR-LDP related RFCs, beyond their current statuses are planned within the MPLS Working Group.
在MPLS工作组内，除CR-LDP相关RFC的当前状态外，不计划对其进行进一步更新。
Very early (1997) in the MPLS standardization it was clear that a protocol would be needed that would enable providers to setup LSPs that took other information (e.g., various QoS parameters) into account.
在MPLS标准化的早期（1997年），显然需要一种协议，使提供商能够设置考虑其他信息（如各种QoS参数）的LSP。
Development of this type of signalling protocol took two different tracks:
这种信令协议的发展经历了两条不同的轨道：
- extensions to RSVP for setting up MPLS tunnels [RFC3209]
- 用于建立MPLS隧道的RSVP扩展[RFC3209]
- extensions to LDP for setting constraint based LSPs [RFC3212]
- 用于设置基于约束的LSP的LDP扩展[RFC3212]
The motivation for the choice of protocol in both cases was straightforward. Extending RSVP-TE to do in an MPLS environment what it already was doing (handling QoS information and reserving resources) in an IP environment is comprehensible; you only have to add the label distribution capability. Extending a native MPLS
在这两种情况下，选择方案的动机都很简单。将RSVP-TE扩展到MPLS环境中，它在IP环境中已经在做的事情（处理QoS信息和保留资源）是可以理解的；您只需添加标签分发功能。扩展本机MPLS
protocol like LDP, which was designed to do label distribution, to handle some extra TLVs with QoS information is also not revolutionary.
像LDP这样的协议，设计用于标签分发，用来处理带有QoS信息的额外TLV，也不是革命性的。
The MPLS group never reached a consensus on which way to go. Both protocols were progressed to proposed standard.
MPLS小组从未就走哪条路达成共识。两个协议都进展到了提议的标准。
An implementation survey of GMPLS implementations was published in June 2002 [GMPLS]. The survey includes responses from 22 different implementers. Twenty-one of 22 implementations include the GMPLS signalling based on [RFC3209], while only 3 include signalling based on [RFC3212].
2002年6月发布了GMPLS实施情况调查[GMPLS]。该调查包括22个不同实施者的回复。22种实现中的21种包括基于[RFC3209]的GMPLS信令，而只有3种包括基于[RFC3212]的信令。
The GMPLS implementation report prompted questions asking if it was reasonable to have two different protocols for the same thing. The discussion was brought to the MPLS Working Group at the meeting in Yokohama in July 2002. After discussion at the meeting it was decided to "bring this to the list" and also invite comments from the other Sub-IP Area Working Groups.
GMPLS实施报告引发了一些问题，询问为同一件事使用两种不同的协议是否合理。2002年7月在横滨举行的会议上，该讨论被提交给了MPLS工作组。会议讨论后，决定“将其列入清单”，并邀请其他知识产权分区域工作组发表意见。
The following question sent to the mailing lists:
以下问题已发送至邮件列表：
"As there are issues with having two similar standards (potentially diverging), and it generates duplicate work in several IETF working groups, the question was asked whether we should make CR-LDP informational (which still make it available and possible to work with) and progress only RSVP-TE on the standards track."
“由于有两个类似的标准存在问题（可能存在分歧），并且会在几个IETF工作组中产生重复工作，因此有人问我们是否应该使CR-LDP具有信息性（仍然可以使用），并且只在标准轨道上推进RSVP-TE。”
The response to this question was largely positive, but some problems were immediately pointed out:
对这一问题的答复基本上是积极的，但立即指出了一些问题：
- there are non-IETF standards which reference RFC 3212. Taking CR-LDP off the standards track would cause un-necessary problems for those organizations and should be done only after co-ordinating with those organizations
- 有参考RFC 3212的非IETF标准。让CR-LDP脱离标准轨道将给这些组织带来不必要的问题，只有在与这些组织协调后才能这样做
- there is, e.g., in RFC 2026 [RFC2026], no documented process according to which a document on the standards track may be move to a status that is non-standards track
- 例如，在RFC 2026[RFC2026]中，没有文件化的流程，根据该流程，标准轨道上的文档可能会移动到非标准轨道状态
Each of these arguments is by themselves strong and would have led to some reformulation of the proposal to move CR-LDP to informational. Moreover, in combination it was clear that the original proposal was not viable.
每一个论点本身都是强有力的，都会导致将CR-LDP转变为信息型的提案的重新制定。此外，结合起来，原来的建议显然是不可行的。
On the other hand the support for doing additional development of CR-LDP as an IETF standards track alternative to RSVP-TE was extremely small.
另一方面，作为RSVP-TE的IETF标准轨道替代方案，对CR-LDP进行额外开发的支持非常少。
The current IETF process for managing changes in RFC status does not include any information on how to move an existing standard track RFC to a non-standard track status, nor does it include a prohibition of such an action. It has been shown that such actions have been previously taken e.g., RFCs 2673 and 2874 were moved from Proposed Standard to Experimental. Though the cases are not exactly parallel to the MPLS signalling case it shows that the IETF and IESG are prepared to take such decisions given that the arguments are sufficiently strong.
当前用于管理RFC状态变更的IETF流程不包括关于如何将现有标准轨道RFC移至非标准轨道状态的任何信息，也不包括禁止此类行动。已经证明，之前已经采取了此类措施，例如，RFC 2673和2874从提议的标准转移到实验性标准。尽管这些案例与MPLS信令案例并不完全平行，但它表明IETF和IESG已经准备好做出这样的决定，因为论据足够有力。
The relationship with other standard organizations is an important part of IETF work. We are dependent on their work and they make use of our technology; each organization has their own area of expertise. It is therefore necessary that both sides handle their standards documentation in such a way that no unnecessary updates or revisions are introduced simply by sloppy handling of documents.
与其他标准组织的关系是IETF工作的重要组成部分。我们依靠他们的工作，他们利用我们的技术；每个组织都有自己的专业领域。因此，双方都有必要以这样的方式处理他们的标准文件，即不通过草率地处理文件而引入不必要的更新或修订。
Consequently we need to keep CR-LDP referenceable, i.e., on the standards track, for the foreseeable future. The implication of this is not that we need to progress it further, or need to undertake further work in the area. One implication however is that standards organizations which reference the document, need to be notified of our decision so that they (at their own pace) can change their references to more appropriate documents. It is also expected that they will notify us when they no longer have a need to normative reference to CR-LDP.
因此，我们需要在可预见的未来保持CR-LDP的可参考性，即在标准轨道上。这并不意味着我们需要在这方面取得进一步进展，也不意味着我们需要在这方面开展进一步的工作。然而，其中一个含义是，引用该文件的标准组织需要将我们的决定通知他们，以便他们（以自己的速度）可以将其引用更改为更合适的文件。当他们不再需要引用CR-LDP的规范性参考时，预计他们将通知我们。
Based on the feed back from this first discussion the question to the working group were reformulated as:
根据第一次讨论的反馈意见，向工作组提出的问题改为：
"Should the MPLS WG focus its efforts on a signalling protocol for traffic engineering applications on RSVP-TE, and hence the WG effort with CR-LDP be discontinued? This would not involve any change in
“MPLS工作组是否应将其工作重点放在RSVP-TE上流量工程应用的信令协议上，并因此停止工作组与CR-LDP的工作？这将不涉及任何变更
document status for CR-LDP, nor would it hinder continued individual contributions in the CR-LDP space. It would involve a change in the MPLS WG charter to reflect this."
CR-LDP的文件状态，也不会妨碍个人在CR-LDP领域的持续贡献。这将涉及修改MPLS工作组章程以反映这一点。”
It was pointed out that "nor would it hinder continued individual contributions" is too weak. We actually discourage, while it is not prohibited, continued work in the CR-LDP area. That is the whole point with taking this decision.
有人指出，“也不会妨碍个人继续捐款”太弱。事实上，我们不鼓励在CR-LDP领域继续开展工作，尽管这并不是禁止的。这就是做出这个决定的关键所在。
It was also pointed out that while it is quite acceptable to not accept further working group documents, it would also be appropriate to take the existing CR-LDP related working group Internet Drafts through the process to proposed standard or informational as intended. This is applicable to the following documents, since much of the work has already been completed on them:
还有人指出，虽然不接受进一步的工作组文件是完全可以接受的，但也可以将现有的与CR-LDP有关的工作组互联网草案通过这一过程，达到拟议的标准或预期的信息性。这适用于以下文件，因为大部分工作已经完成：
- in MPLS WG -- Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol Query Message Description -- Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with Label Switched Path -- Feedback in Constraint Based Label Distribution Protocol -- Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP -- Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) - in CCAMP WG -- Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions -- Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control -- Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control -- Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features
- 在MPLS WG中--多协议标签交换标签分发协议查询消息描述--使用标签交换路径提高拓扑数据库的准确性--基于约束的标签分发协议中的反馈--在CR-LDP中发送未编号链路--标签分发协议（LDP）的容错-在CCAMP WG中——通用MPLS信令——CR-LDP扩展——用于SONET和SDH控制的通用多协议标签交换扩展——用于G.709光传输网络控制的通用MPLS信令扩展——用于控制非标准SONET和SDH特性的通用多协议标签交换扩展
Some of the documents listed above are not in themselves extensions to CR-LDP, but in one way or another are deemed to be "equally applicable to CR-LDP". For those documents it will be fully appropriate to progress them beyond proposed standard in the future if they meet the requirements.
上面列出的一些文件本身不是CR-LDP的扩展，但以某种方式被视为“同样适用于CR-LDP”。对于这些文件，如果它们满足要求，则完全适合在未来将其提高到提议的标准之外。
RFCs that are extensions to CR-LDP, e.g., RFCs 3213 and 3214, will remain proposed standard documents.
作为CR-LDP扩展的RFC，例如RFC 3213和3214，将仍然是建议的标准文件。
After this compromise was proposed a good consensus quickly formed supporting the proposal. Close to 90% of the people participating discussion said that they support or at least accept this outcome of the working group discussion.
在提出这一折衷方案后，很快就形成了支持该方案的良好共识。近90%的参与讨论的人表示，他们支持或至少接受工作组讨论的结果。
In a message to the working group (date) the working groups chairs stated that consensus had been reached on:
各工作组主席在致工作组的致辞（日期）中表示，已就以下事项达成共识：
- that the MPLS WG needs to focus its efforts on RSVP-TE (RFC 3209) as protocol for traffic engineering signalling.
- MPLS工作组需要将其工作重点放在RSVP-TE（RFC 3209）上，作为流量工程信令的协议。
- that the Working Group will undertake no new work related to CR-LDP.
- 工作组不承担与CR-LDP相关的新工作。
- that the WG charter should be updated to reflect this.
- 工作组章程应更新以反映这一点。
- that the WG will recommend that CR-LDP (RFC 3212) remain a proposed standard.
- 工作组将建议CR-LDP（RFC 3212）继续作为建议标准。
- that the WG will recommend that RFCs 3213 and 3214, which are closely related to CR-LDP, remain proposed standard.
- 工作组将建议与CR-LDP密切相关的RFC 3213和3214保持拟议标准。
- that existing Working Group drafts related to or updating/changing CR-LDP will be progressed through the standards process to proposed standard or informational RFCs as appropriate.
- 与CR-LDP相关或更新/更改CR-LDP的现有工作组草案将通过标准流程进展到提议的标准或信息RFC（视情况而定）。
- that "the existing cr-ldp working group documents" are: -- Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol Query Message Description -- Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with Label Switched Path Feedback in Constraint Based Label Distribution Protocol Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP -- Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) -- Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions -- Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control -- Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control -- Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features
- “现有cr ldp工作组文件”are:--多协议标签交换标签分发协议查询消息描述--在基于约束的标签分发协议中通过标签交换路径反馈提高拓扑数据库的准确性，在CR-LDP中发送未编号的链路--标签分发协议（LDP）的容错性——通用MPLS信令——CR-LDP扩展——用于SONET和SDH控制的通用多协议标签交换扩展——用于G.709光传输网络控制的通用MPLS信令扩展——用于控制非标准SONET和SDH特性的通用多协议标签交换扩展
- that the MPLS working group will take on no new Working Group documents related to CR-LDP.
- MPLS工作组不会接受与CR-LDP相关的新工作组文件。
- that the MPLS working group will entertain no efforts to promote CR-LDP beyond proposed standard.
- MPLS工作组将不考虑在拟定标准之外推广CR-LDP。
- that individual contributions related to CR-LDP area are not prohibited, but discouraged.
- 与CR-LDP领域相关的个人捐款不受禁止，但不受鼓励。
- that a message will be sent to the relevant standards organizations notifying them of this change of focus on MPLS signalling protocols.
- 将向相关标准组织发送一条消息，通知他们MPLS信令协议重点的变化。
Based on the consensus in the MPLS working group we recommend the IESG to:
根据MPLS工作组的共识，我们建议IESG：
- confirm the MPLS Working Group consensus to undertake no new work on CR-LDP and focus on RSVP-TE as signalling protocol for traffic engineering applications for MPLS, as described in this document
- 确认MPLS工作组的共识，即不开展关于CR-LDP的新工作，并将RSVP-TE作为MPLS流量工程应用的信令协议，如本文件所述
- adopt as an IETF policy to refrain from entertaining work that intends to progress RFC 3212 or related RFCs beyond proposed standard
- 采用IETF政策，避免娱乐性工作，以使RFC 3212或相关RFC超出拟定标准
- adopt as an IETF policy to refrain from entertaining new working group documents that are extensions to RFC 3212
- 作为IETF的一项政策，不接受作为RFC 3212扩展的新工作组文件
- review the IETF process with respect to management of documents that needs to be moved from standards track to any other status
- 审查IETF过程中需要从标准轨道转移到任何其他状态的文件管理
- publish this document as Informational RFC
- 以信息RFC的形式发布此文档
This document only discusses a refocusing of the MPLS Working Group work and consequently brings no new security considerations.
本文档只讨论了MPLS工作组工作的重新聚焦，因此没有带来新的安全考虑。
This document brings no IANA considerations.
本文件没有考虑IANA。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S. "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Ed., Andersson, R., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kitly, T. and A. Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.
[RFC3212]Jamoussi，B.，Ed.，Andersson，R.，Callon，R.，Dantu，R.，Wu，L.，Doolan，P.，Worster，T.，Feldman，N.，Fredette，A.，Girish，M.，Gray，E.，Heinanen，J.，Kitly，T.和A.Malis，“使用LDP的基于约束的LSP设置”，RFC 32122002年1月。
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3209]Awduche，D.，Berger，L.，Gan，D.，Li，T.，Srinivasan，V.和G.Swallow，“RSVP-TE：LSP隧道RSVP的扩展”，RFC 3209，2001年12月。
[RFC3213] Jamoussi, B., Ash, J., Girish, M., Gray, B. and G. Wright, "Applicability Statement for CR-LDP", RFC 3213, January 2002.
[RFC3213]Jamoussi，B.，Ash，J.，Girish，M.，Gray，B.和G.Wright，“CR-LDP的适用性声明”，RFC 3213，2002年1月。
[RFC3214] Jamoussi, B., Ash, J., Lee, Y., Ashwood-Smith, P., Fedyk, D., Shalecki, D. and L. Li, "LSP Modification Using CR-LDP" RFC 3214, January 2002.
[RFC3214]Jamoussi，B.，Ash，J.，Lee，Y.，Ashwood Smith，P.，Fedyk，D.，Shalecki，D.和L.Li，“使用CR-LDP的LSP改性”RFC 3214，2002年1月。
[RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Eds., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003.
[RFC3472]Ashwood Smith，P.和L.Berger，编辑，“基于信令约束的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）路由标签分发协议（CR-LDP）扩展”，RFC 3472，2003年1月。
[GMPLS] Rekhther, Y. and L. Berger, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - Implementation Survey", http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/ MPLS-SIGNALING-Implementation.txt, June 2002.
[GMPLS]Rekhther，Y.和L.Berger，“通用MPLS信令-实施调查”，http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/ MPLS-SIGNALING-Implementation.txt，2002年6月。
[QUERY] Ashwood-Smith P. and A. Paraschiv, "Multi Protocol Label Switching Label Distribution Protocol Query Message Description", Work in Progress.
[查询]Ashwood Smith P.和A.Paraschiv，“多协议标签交换标签分发协议查询消息描述”，正在进行中。
[FEED] Jamoussi, B., et al., "Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy with LSP Feedback in CR-LDP", Work in Progress.
[FEED]Jamoussi，B.等人，“利用CR-LDP中的LSP反馈提高拓扑数据库的准确性”，正在进行的工作。
[RFC3480] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. and A. Kullberg, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)", RFC 3480, February 2003.
[RFC3480]Kompella，K.，Rekhter，Y.和A.Kullberg，“CR-LDP（约束路由标签分发协议）中的无编号链路信令”，RFC 3480，2003年2月。
[RFC3479] Farrel, A., Ed., "Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3479, February 2003.
[RFC3479]Farrel，A.，Ed.“标签分发协议（LDP）的容错”，RFC 3479，2003年2月。
[SONET] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control", Work in Progress.
[SONET]Mannie，E.和D.Papadimitriou，“SONET和SDH控制的通用多协议标签交换扩展”，正在进行中。
[G709] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", Work in Progress.
[G709]Papadimitriou，D.，编辑，“G.709光传输网络控制的通用MPLS信令扩展”，正在进行的工作。
[SDH] "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions to Control Non-Standard SONET and SDH Features" Work in Progress.
[SDH]“控制非标准SONET和SDH功能的通用多协议标签交换扩展”正在进行中。
Loa Andersson
安徒生酒店
EMail: loa@pi.se
EMail: loa@pi.se
George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824
乔治斯沃诺思科系统公司，马萨诸塞州切姆斯福德阿波罗大道250号，邮编01824
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。