Thomas,
I'm slightly tired of hearing the same arguments in tens emails from the same source, but I will still try to highlight a few misleading or wrongstatements (below). Most importantly, I would like to highlight the fact that, AFAICT the people opposing the path proposed by the chairs have not proposed analternative that would help the working group push to the IESG, a set of documents describing a multicast VPN solution that vendors can implementand that would inter-operate.
That is not true, Cisco posted the draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn- profiles-01, which documents very precisely how the PIM based solutions work. And we are more then willing to add a BGP profile to it with help of the people that prefer a BGP approach.
After last IETF I had hoped to see a proposal from the chairs to create 2 drafts, one documenting a PIM based solutions set, and an other based on BGP. Both moving forward on standards track. These documents don't need to make comparisons between BGP and PIM (as is done in the Morin draft), because this creates endless discussions and don't get us anywhere. It just needs to document how the different modules work together so that vendors can be interoperable. Each customer can choose the preferred approach and talk to the vendor for an implementation.
Thx, Ice.