RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

["MEDAMANA, JOHN B, ATTOPS" <[e-mail]>]

I vote NO.

Need to get agreement on requirements first, before a specific solution
proposal is voted on. I recommend pursuing agreement on requirements in
"draft-mnapierala-part-reqt", which addresses the needs of large
Multicast VPNs. 

John Medamana

AT&T

====================

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