Re: Advancing the Multicast L3VPN protocol drafts

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <benjamin.niven-jenkins at bt.com>]

Marshall, WG,

I have no problem in principle with decoupling the protocol documents from
the "implementation" draft(s) (so I guess that's a yes).  However I do feel
it is just sidestepping the real issue.

The current protocol drafts as they stand are no good to me as an operator
that requires multi-vendor interoperable solutions.  In combination with the
"implementation" draft(s) they could be of use to me.

Therefore unless there is commitment from the WG to address and resolve the
"implementation" draft(s) issue (which is the real issue that's need
resolving IMO) then sending the protocol drafts to the IESG still places us
in the same position we have been in for some time albeit with two more RFC
numbers allocated.


Ben



On 06/08/2008 13:37, "Marshall Eubanks" <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> While there was rough consensus in Dublin to decouple the
> protocol drafts from the choice of how to describe the use of those
> protocols
> to create interoperable Multicast VPNs, and to progress the protocol
> drafts immediately,
> such decisions must be confirmed by this list.
> 
> The essence of the "decoupling" proposal is that the protocol
> documents will progress
> (which will clearly take some time) while the Working Group decides
> what profile drafts,
> requirement drafts, etc., will accompany them.
> 
> Therefore :
> 
> Should the L3VPN WG submit both
> 
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast  AND
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp to the IESG
> 
> as multicast VPN solutions and as proposed standards ?
> 
> If you support this proposal  please
> reply with a "yes", if you're opposed, reply with a "no".
> 
> While comments and suggestions are welcomed, please make your
> position clear in your response. Note that this is not a WG Last Call on
> these documents, but a request for a WG decision.
> 
> Please provide any feedback no later than August 21, 2008.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks