RE: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WGdocument

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

+1.

imho, when the disadvantages of the UDP based mechanism are well
agreed-upon, there seems to be good-reason for WG to not encourage
further extensions/deployments of the UDP-based mechanism.

Kaliraj 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Yakov Rekhter
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:49 PM
> To: IJsbrand Wijnands
> Cc: Thomas Morin; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a
> L3VPN WGdocument
> 
> Ice,
> 
> > Thomas,
> >
> > > beyond what is already covered by the base mVPN specs recently
> submitted
> > > to the IESG [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06#section-3.2].
> > > Nobody commented against this part of the document, even though
the
> > > document was debated in length on many other points.
> >
> > There are many successful deployments of the UDP based mechanism and
> many of
> > these customers don't even care to come to IETF to debate this.
There
> > is a perfectly valid deployment reason to allow a simple extension
to
> > the UDP based mechanism, even if it goes against your
recommendation.
> 
> The recommendation is *not* just Thomas' recommendation - it is the
> recommendation of the L3VPN WG. So, extending the UDP-based S-PMSI
> signaling goes against recommendation of L3VPN WG !
> 
> While there is nothing that would force a particular service provider
> to come to IETF and to participate in L3VPN WG, it does not mean
> that L3VPN WG has to standardize every possible option that every
> possible service provider may want.
> 
> Yakov.
> 
> >
> > I vote for option 1.
> >
> >
> > Thx,
> >
> > Ice.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Eric mentioned the promise made between co-authors of mVPN specs
and
> an
> > > A-D as a key argument to adopt the IPv6-related part of this
draft,
> even
> > > though this promise did not involve the working group.   By
> comparison,
> > > strong and recent working group consensus to not extend the UDP-
> based
> > > signaling to other types of P-tunnels, looks to me as a reason at
> least
> > > as good to *not* adopt a document proposition such an extension.
> > >
> > > So well, I don't think that adopting the document with section 3.1
> > > should even be considered, and in any case I'm opposed the
adoption
> of
> > > the document if it includes that section.
> > >
> > > -Thomas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [e-mail]:
> > >> Colleagues,
> > >>
> > >> This e-mail is to start a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should
adopt
> > >> draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document.
> > >>
> > >> As there was some discussion in Anaheim on section 3.1 of the
draft,
> we wi
> ll
> > >> follow Eric's suggestion in his mail of 16th April (
> > >>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html).
> > >>
> > >> Therefore please indicate your support or otherwise by responding
> to this
> > >> message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the
> following thr
> ee
> > >> options:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Yes/Support for the entire of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-
> joins-00 to
> be
> > >> adopted as a L3VPN WG document.
> > >>
> > >> 2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be
> adopted as
> a
> > >> WG document provided section 3.1 is removed.
> > >>
> > >> 3) No/Do not support draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 being
> adopted a
> s
> > >> a WG document at all.
> > >>
> > >> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.
> > >>
> > >> Ben
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >