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

[David Ball <[e-mail]>]

I do not believe that draft is a good basis for L2SM work as is - much 
of the content pertains to information that is internal to the SP's 
network and implementation of the service, rather than what is relevant 
to the customer of the service.  Such content does not belong in a 
customer service model (which is what L2SM is chartered to develop).  In 
addition the draft is not well aligned with MEF specifications.

I have given further feedback to the authors of the draft offline, 
including asking them to clarify the intent of their draft.  To date I 
have had assurances from Adrian but no response from the authors.


     David


On 18/11/2016 00:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our charter mandates that we consider basing our work on
> draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt
>
> As we discussed in the meeting, that draft is not perfect. But when I asked the
> room whether we thought that it would provide a good starting point that we
> could work with to polish and adapt to become the I-D that we ultimately submit
> for publication as an RFC, I believe I heard a good hum in favour and silence in
> opposition.
>
> So this email starts a formal poll for adoption. Please answer:
>
> Do you think that the WG should adopt draft-wen-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-03.txt?
>
> If "yes," it would help if you could indicate whether you have read the draft
> and how happy you are with it.
> If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
>
> This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Saturday 3rd December.
>
> Just to reassure everyone that adoption does not imply that anything is set in
> stone: we expect the WG to continue to develop the content and change whatever
> needs to be changed.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian and Qin
>
> _______________________________________________
> L2sm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm

-- 
David Ball
<[e-mail]>