I vote NO.
Need to get agreement on requirements first, before a specific solution proposal is voted on. I recommend pursuing agreement on requirements in "draft-mnapierala-part-reqt", which addresses the needs of large Multicast VPNs.
John Medamana
AT&T
====================
This email starts a 3 week call for input, to
expire October 23, 2008,
for
the following steps:
1.) To accept
draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 as a working
group document; and
2.) To turn this document into a requirements
draft, with mandatory to
implement
features for an interoperable implementation. The authors
have indicated that they are willing to do
this.
Our intention is, if this approach is
accepted, to then begin WG last
call
to submit to the IESG for publication:
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
We expect that these two documents will be
submitted more or less as is
(i.e.,
certainly with any new bug fixes or other necessary corrections
and
improvements, but without specific mandatory to
implement feature
description in
those drafts).
Please respond to the list with your
recommendations for these two
courses
of action.
Regards
Marshall & Danny