[L3sm] Poll for adoption of draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 16 June 2015 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB9C1B3526 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 14B_F4Pkp5Jx for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE571B3522 for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXL14044; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:38:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:38:50 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.89]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:38:44 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "l3sm@ietf.org" <l3sm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Poll for adoption of draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
Thread-Index: AdCoOcNOC4WSimn7RASgarVbA3avjg==
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:38:44 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8475E8DC@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8475E8DCnkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/eIOosHvroHarhfy9bAZJ0vnuZzo>
Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: [L3sm] Poll for adoption of draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:38:56 -0000

Hello working group:



As you'll recall, our charter directs us to produce a single deliverable: a YANG data model that describes a L3VPN service.



The charter says:

> The working group should consider draft-l3vpn-service-yang as a

> starting point.



The authors of that draft have just reposted it as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model giving it a name that associates it with the working group, and picking up a number of review comments from the mailing list.



Obviously the document is not perfect yet, but the chairs believe it is sufficiently stable that we should adopt it into the WG so that we can polish it and work towards publication as an RFC. So this email starts a two-week poll for adoption of the draft ending 30/06/2015.



Please indicate whether you support adoption for not, and if not why. If you support adoption, have you read the document? do you think it meets our needs? is it stable enough for adoption? If you oppose to adoption, can you say why? what is your proposed alternative? what needs to be done before adoption?



It's likely that as you review the document you will come up with issues and concerns. We hope these will be fixed along the way, so please do raise them on the mailing list. But please also try to understand the difference between a critical issue that should block adoption, and smaller issues that can be fixed better through discussion within the working group.



Thanks,

Qin and Adrian