RE: IPLS
Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Mon, 14 July 2014 12:27 UTC
Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B231A03BF for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 05:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QMHNUDV1TXBH for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 05:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1lp0017.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A4C1A03BE for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 05:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB610.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.985.8; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:27:13 +0000
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0980.000; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:27:13 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: IPLS
Thread-Topic: IPLS
Thread-Index: AQHPn1xMuCiwWlvA0UubT8IwXIg58Zufef9AgAAAc4CAAAPfwA==
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:27:13 +0000
Message-ID: <c634f9d1ca9e4bdca4ffd19f3f60a25f@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <7D0D3E1D-294E-4A85-AA1D-A86A5F5C0E5F@gmail.com> <de97d3d3c89241bf90769f13dac39772@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <EBA5134E-6361-4CFD-A26A-FFBA43DB898C@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EBA5134E-6361-4CFD-A26A-FFBA43DB898C@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02723F29C4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(13464003)(24454002)(377454003)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(252514010)(53754006)(79102001)(85852003)(64706001)(15202345003)(86362001)(4396001)(106116001)(92566001)(83322001)(76576001)(74662001)(87936001)(19580405001)(81542001)(76482001)(95666004)(105586002)(107046002)(77982001)(46102001)(31966008)(66066001)(21056001)(85306003)(106356001)(2656002)(83072002)(20776003)(81342001)(110136001)(99396002)(54356999)(19580395003)(15975445006)(80022001)(74316001)(76176999)(101416001)(221733001)(74502001)(50986999)(33646001)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB610; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/qucq6eWE81hsIh0ksqksdYf-nfo
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:27:18 -0000
Hi Giles,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have always thought that Historic RFCs describe something that has been implemented and deployed, but new standards are now in force.
E.g., original Martini drafts (which definitely have been implemented and deployed) have been published as Historic RFCs.
For the sake of curiosity, is this the case with IPLS?
Regards,
Sasha
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Mobile: 054-9266302
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:10 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPLS
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
> yes - I believe that's the plan.
>
> Giles
>
> On 14 Jul 2014, at 13:09, Alexander Vainshtein
> <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:
>
> > Giles,
> > Do you intend to progress it directly to Historic RFC?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sasha
> > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
> > Mobile: 054-9266302
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron
> >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:08 PM
> >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> >> Subject: IPLS
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> the IPLS draft (probably the oldest draft ever to attempt to progress
> >> to RFC) was recently re-published as "historic" rather than
> "informational":
> >>
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14
> >>
> >> To that end the IANA assignments requested in the draft were also
> >> withdrawn - though they could be re-instated if the draft were ever
> >> to progress.
> >>
> >> Based on these changes we now intend to progress this draft to RFC.
> >>
> >> Giles
> >>
> >