Re: draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-04 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-interop-00

... please address and, if necessary incorporate, changes suggested by  
WG members (Peng He, Alexander Shafir and others), during this thread  
into the next revision of the WG draft (-01).

Two other suggestions:
1)  We should really add an "Applicability Statement", similar to PWE3  
& other drafts, near the very top of this draft.  This would make it  
more clear to the IESG & readers why (& when) this draft is required  
to fulfill the needs of SP's.  My suggested layout for the beginning  
of this draft would be as follows:
  - Abstract
  - Section 1: Introduction -- I would suggest leaving the first  
paragraph and, perhaps, the second to last and last paragraphs of the  
existing "Introduction" and try to clean it up a bit by reducing the  
number of acronyms used.
  - Section 2: Applicability -- I would suggest taking the rest of  
the existing Introduction and moving it in this section.  Furthermore,  
the Applicability section should briefly & clearly point out which of  
the following four categories are relevant to this draft:
	+ PBB "just works" with VPLS
	+ PBB may not work with VPLS
	+ PBB works with VPLS, but not efficiently
	+ PBB won't work with VPLS
  - Section 3: Terminology
2)  We should also look at reducing the number of acronyms used in the  
Abstract and Introduction, in order to improve it's readability.  It's  
good that there is Section 2, Terminology, in there to help provide a  
Glossary ... however, that comes *after* the Abstract & Introduction,  
so it would be good to tone-down things in those sections until people  
get to the Terminology section.

We should also look at adding an Applicability Statement section to  
the other PBB WG draft (draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-00) as  
well, for the same reasons as stated above.

Thanks,

-shane


On Mar 29, 2009, at 8:49 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-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-04
>
> The deadline for comments will be 3 weeks: Friday, April 17.   
> Silence will not be counted as acceptance.
>
> Finally, please note that there is IPR filed against a previous  
> version of this draft (-03).  Please follow the procedures outlined  
> in RFC 3979 and consult your own legal counsel in your decision- 
> making process.
>
> -shane