Re: [L2sm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-l2sm-00-06: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 03 November 2016 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 043771295EF; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 06:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZKF8Xzj4-vkW; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 06:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00ECC1295EC; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 06:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.21] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uA3DOWOE022769 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 08:24:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.21]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 08:24:32 -0500
Message-ID: <FED0B8A0-C479-4FB3-BEEF-20BFBCF6163D@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <ab972a62-a501-536a-6615-5913cbafacee@cisco.com>
References: <147813992718.24057.8654858944560143534.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ab972a62-a501-536a-6615-5913cbafacee@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/WUcg3wX4T010zsrnl65R12tW8KE>
Cc: l2sm-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, l2sm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [L2sm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-l2sm-00-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:25:10 -0000

On 3 Nov 2016, at 6:22, Benoit Claise wrote:

> On 11/3/2016 3:25 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> charter-ietf-l2sm-00-06: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
>> this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-l2sm/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A strictly editorial comment:
>>
>> The second sentence in the third paragraph would benefit from being
>> broken into a few shorter sentences.
> You're right.
> New text, proposed by Adrian:
>
> The working group will derive a single data model that includes 
> support for the following:
>
> - point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWS),
>
> - multipoint Virtual Private LAN services (VPLS) that use LDP-signaled 
> Pseudowires
>
> - multipoint Virtual Private LAN services (VPLS) that use a Border 
> Gateway Protocol
>
> (BGP) control plane as described in RFC4761 and RFC6624
>
> - Ethernet VPNs specified in RFC 7432

That's much better, thanks!