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

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Morin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a
> L3VPN WG document
> 
> 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
> >
> >