Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Wim,

On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:

> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished?

Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-)

If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible.

Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3:
-> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC and about to be sent to IESG for publication
-> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC on shortly
-> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another revision before being ready for WG LC

So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems achievable.

I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly too.

Ben

> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is done.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38
> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); [e-mail]
> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN
> 
> Dear WG members;
> 
> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that
> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working
> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of the
> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a
> new working group with a different focus.
> 
> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts are
> 
> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or
> 
> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or
> 
> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another
> WG as individual submissions.
> 
> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any
> insurmountable difficulties with this process.
> 
> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another
> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG
> (and of the work)
> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the
> agenda to discuss this at
> the RTGAREA meeting.
> 
> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time
> to speak up.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins