RE: [L1vpn] Proposed charter for L1VPN WG

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard at att.com>]

Hi all,
My comment below (db),
------------
> this said, why not combining item 8 and 9 in a single item and leave
the
> multiple-provider case for the next step

I think I can agree to leaving multi-provider to the next step (although
note that we have already received a question about how to provide this
function).

In which case, we are not combining items 8 and 9. We are deleting item
9.
This is fine.

> "8. Guidelines for applying the basic and extended modes for
> single-provider networks."

Also OK.
-----------
db: As both the ITU L1VPN Recommendation and the framework draft already
refer to the need for supporting iner-SP L1VPN, I'd prefer to keep some
type of wording recognizing it as a next step vs. using restrictive
wording on single-provider solutions. Omission may be incorrectly
inferred as explicitly excluding (e.g. lack of intent/interest). For
GMPLS, (mis)understandings on support of inter-SP, inter-domain
(signaling/routing), different addressing schemes, etc has resulted in
it being the most popular topic for inter-SDO supported communications
(e.g. liaisons);-)

Deborah