RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

["SZELA, MATEUSZ W (MATT), ATTLABS" <[e-mail]>]

>  Marshall & Danny et al,
> 
> I do NOT SUPPORT this draft.
> 
> The proposed draft, does not consider the needs and requirements of
> large Service Providers with huge MVPN deployed base that services
> critical business customers.
> 
> The correct approach is to poll Service Providers, who use MVPN now,
> first and agree on a set of requirements that consider the needs of
> the SP and end customers.
> The requirements must consider the needs of the Business Customers who
> use large SP MVPN networks.
> 
> 
> Tx,
> 
> Matt W. Szela
> Director,
> New Technology Product Dev. Eng.
> AT&T Laboratories
> [e-mail]
> v: 732-420-6828
> c: 732-208-5341
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:04 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Ross Callon
> Subject: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts 
> 
> 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
>