Re: [L2sm] Adoption poll for draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt

David Ball <daviball@cisco.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <daviball@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8404F129953 for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:38:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHDbn3q5XkkE for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F9861298C1 for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:38:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3690; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479721097; x=1480930697; h=from:subject:to:references:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=ere3yur1KhIeXuu7fAuhyZH5yp1MWKskO5dnJll+f2o=; b=SasvqFoXAfdQqDuNBWUpf1CmS21eVxLr1bLxbJWbimQH98A7TKpWIiKc 0pdnrCOFBCnzC80XkMDUQuc2sEghAX5/WdWIzN3eptagmBPBIyJf0z5/I 9hpfGHNQZJ5Nfb6koqBKhIShJyzTqyuVS9Psp2LjDavLMVjWATeh9xiM7 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AKAgAjwDJY/xbLJq1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgzgBAQEBAYEjVI0/lxCPT4UfggWGIQKCSBQBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRpAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?EgQkLBBQuVwcMBgIBAYhprCIvixwBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEBIIY8gX2CXYoqBZpNk?= =?us-ascii?q?HeKA4YkiX+DYIQLHjdzEwyFQT40iDwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,674,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="650091160"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Nov 2016 09:38:15 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.90] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-90.cisco.com [10.63.23.90]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uAL9cFpe028606; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:38:15 GMT
From: David Ball <daviball@cisco.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, l2sm@ietf.org
References: <0d4501d24132$62ceb590$286c20b0$@olddog.co.uk> <fe6e128f-6bc2-7164-3882-ad4d9de862a1@cisco.com> <0f1f01d241a7$959b1c00$c0d15400$@olddog.co.uk>
Message-ID: <1a94d940-9cce-26c9-be2e-a5ac5fd93acf@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:38:15 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0f1f01d241a7$959b1c00$c0d15400$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------437C3C626A9910E3329A56B6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/-RO7bv0q9ndSx_YcyAeRmjvOBVM>
Subject: Re: [L2sm] Adoption poll for draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:38:19 -0000

Hi Adrian,

On 18/11/2016 14:25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> But let's quickly jump from that discussion to try to understand the way forward
> you would like to see. Clearly you think changes to the document are needed and
> it sounds like everyone agrees that that is true. And that sounds (to me) like
> you believe we have a document we can work with to serve as a basis for updates.
> What isn't obvious to me is why you don't think that the working group should
> have control of this discussion and the changes to the document. What do you
> propose?

Fundamentally, given the amount of work needed on this document, it's 
not clear to me that taking it as a basis for the WG work is the 
least-effort option; we should as a minimum consider alternatives - e.g. 
starting from scratch, or using the MEF modules as a basis (I believe 
MEF have recently liaised their in-progress work to IETF).

I also really would like to hear from the authors - their document may 
be useful in its own right (just not aligned with the WG charter), so it 
may be that they want to proceed with it in that direction, as an 
individual draft.  Of course that doesn't stop the WG "forking" it, but 
one might imagine the authors would be less inclined to participate in 
the WG in that case.


     David


-- 
David Ball
<daviball@cisco.com>