Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Ben, Colleagues,

The working group has recently submitted to the IESG a document that
highlights the drawbacks of the UDP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism,
compared to the BGP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism, and specifically
recommends against extending the UDP-based scheme for types of tunnels
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.

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 will
> 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 three
> 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 as
> a WG document at all.
>
> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.
>
> Ben
>
>