RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Francis:

Did you create an implementation report on this document? 

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:02 AM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bill Fenner; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Pekka Savola
Subject: RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR

Hello Susan and Yakov,

If I am mistaken and we did not agree to issue Last Call on draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt, could you let me know and remind me of the reasons and what needs to be done for that to happen?
If I am not mistaken and we did agree to that, could we do that Last Call?

Thank you

Francois

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>> Behalf Of Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
>> Sent: lundi 17 janvier 2005 16:39
>> To: Susan Hares
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR
>> 
>> Hello Susan,
>> 
>> Did I miss the updated IDR Minutes?
>> Could we go ahead with the Last Call on 
>> draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Francois
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) 
>> >> Sent: lundi 13 décembre 2004 12:39
>> >> To: Susan Hares
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); 
>> [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: RE: [Idr] MInutes for IDR
>> >> 
>> >> Hi Sue,
>> >>  
>> >> Comments on the minutes re bgp-tunnel:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 	IPv6 over IPv4 MPLS (Francis LeFaucheur, presenter)
>> >> 	---------------------------------------------------
>> >> Right spelling for my name is "Francois Le Faucheur"
>> >> I suggest listing the draft being discussed 
>> >> (draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt)
>> >> 
>> >> 	The draft presents a technique, which will be 
>> >> coordinated with V6OPS 
>> >> 
>> >> s/which will be/which has been/
>> >> 
>> >> 	through the ADs, for providing IPv6 service over an 
>> >> existing IPv4 MPLS 
>> >> 	cloud, without the cloud needing to be V6-aware. The 
>> >> proposed solution 
>> >> 	is intended to require no protocll extensions (see 
>> >> 
>> >> s/is intented to require no/does not require any/
>> >> 
>> >> 	draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6). It carris labels in MP-BGP.  The 
>> >> 
>> >> Please remove the reference to draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6 
>> >> above. The stamement about not requiring protocol extensions 
>> >> in bgp-tunnel has nothing to do with l3vpn-bgp-ipv6.
>> >> 
>> >> 	requiriemens are stated in 
>> >> 	 
>> >> 	  draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03.txt.
>> >> 	 
>> >> 	Draft 04 is underway, and will clarify some MUST/SHOULD 
>> >> terminology, 
>> >> 	expand on the inter-AS cases, and add additional detail 
>> >> on security.
>> >> 
>> >> There is some confusion here. The 03-->04 changes related to 
>> >> the bgp-tunnel draft (not to isp-scenario). These changes 
>> >> have already been done in bgp-tunnel-04. 
>> >> So the above should read:
>> >> "bgp-tunnel-04 includes the following changes over the 
>> >> previous version: clarify some MUST/SHOULD terminology, 
>> >> expand on the inter-AS cases, and add additional detail 
>> on security."
>> >> 
>> >> 	Publication of this specification will involve 
>> >> coordinated documents 
>> >> 	between V6OPS and IDR, consistent where possible and 
>> >> different where 
>> >> 	necessary. For example, the V6OPS document will carry 
>> >> label SAFI/AFI 
>> >> 	while the IDR document will carry VPN SAFI/AFI.
>> >> 
>> >> This paragraph mixes everything up. It should read:
>> >> "draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt specifies support for 
>> >> global IPv6 reachability services while 
>> >> draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-03.txt specifies support for IPv6 
>> >> VPN services. The two documents are consistent wherever they 
>> >> can be and are only different where needed (eg bgp-tunnel 
>> >> uses "labeled IPv6" AFI/SAFI while l3vpn-bgp-ipv6 uses 
>> >> "VPN-IPv6" AFI/SAFI).
>> >> 	 
>> >> 	After the editorial changes are complete, the document 
>> >> will go out for 
>> >> 	last call and implementation survey.
>> >> 	 
>> >> I believe what was agreed was that the document was ready 
>> >> for Last Call and the Last Call was going to be issued right 
>> >> after Wash IETF. So I suggest replacing previous paragraph 
>> >> with something like:
>> >> "The document will go out for Last Call after this meeting".
>> >> 
>> >> Thank you
>> >> 
>> >> Francois
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>> 


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr