re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Bruce Davie <[e-mail]>]

Clearly there has been a lot of controversy around the question of  
which (if any) parts of the MVPN drafts should be mandatory to  
implement. I fail to see how the Morin draft can reasonably be taken  
as a starting point for settling that controversy. On that basis, I  
oppose the plan laid out below.

I do however think that advancing the protocol drafts is a fine idea.

Bruce Davie

> This email starts a 3 week call for input, to expire October 23,  
> 2008, for the following steps:
>
> 1.) To accept draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 as a working
> group document;  and
>
> 2.) To turn this document into a requirements draft, with mandatory to
> implement features for an interoperable implementation. The authors
> have indicated that they are willing to do this.
>
> Our intention is, if this approach is accepted, to then begin WG last
> call to submit to the IESG for publication:
>
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
>
> We expect that these two documents will be submitted more or less as  
> is
>
> (i.e., certainly with any new bug fixes or other necessary  
> corrections and
>
> improvements, but without specific mandatory to implement feature
> description in those drafts).
>
> Please respond to the list with your recommendations for these two
> courses of action.
>
> Regards
> Marshall & Danny
>
>
>