Re: draft-balus-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-01 WG draft?

[Shane Amante <shane at castlepoint.net>]

Hi Everyone,

This concludes the call to made this a WG draft.  There appears to be  
good support to make this a WG draft.  Would the authors please re- 
publish the current -01 version as follows:
draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-00

... please incorporate changes suggested by WG members during this  
thread into the next revision of the WG draft (-01).

Before the next IETF, I would like to see further discussion on the  
list among WG members (since this is now a WG draft) as to:
a)  Should this draft be Informational or Standards Track?  And, if  
Standards Track, more specifically why & what category of Standards  
Track, (e.g.: BCP or Proposed Standard).
b)  Will this draft cover procedures for VPLS-BGP as well, or just  
VPLS-LDP (as it is currently written)?

With respect to (b) the draft currently references only RFC 4762 (VPLS- 
LDP), however perhaps it should instead reference RFC 4644, "Framework  
for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", since:
1)  RFC 4664 discusses a "Reference Model" for a "normal" VPLS PE,  
(i.e.: non-PBB VPLS PE) in Figure 3 of Section 2.2; and,
2)  RFC 4664 is more generally applicable to both VPLS-LDP & VPLS-BGP?
... however, as always, I welcome others opinions on this as well.   
Thoughts?

Thanks,

-shane



On Mar 29, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Shane Amante wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At the L2VPN WG meeting at IETF 74 in San Francisco, there was a  
> request by the authors to make this a WG draft. Please indicate to  
> the list if you do or don't support making this draft a WG  
> document.  The following is a URL for this draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balus-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-01
>
> The deadline for comments will be 3 weeks: Friday, April 17.   
> Silence will not be counted as acceptance.
>
> -shane