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

["Aijun Wang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chairs and all:

 

Considering the VPN service is the most deployment services within provider
network, I think it is a good start point for us to discuss the future of
service models and its relation with device models.

Although there are some points needs to be clarified and improved(such as in
the model of sites part, there are some sections that are overlapping and
should be layered organized ), I still support it to be adopt as the WG
draft.

 

Best Regards.

 

Aijun Wang

 

China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute 

Intelligent Network Product Line

 

Tel : [phone]

 

 

From: L3sm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:39 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [L3sm] Poll for adoption of draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model

 

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