Re: Proposal for moving CE and VR drafts forward

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Mon, 21 August 2006 08:54 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GF5Xp-0007u7-84; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:54:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GF5Xn-0007ty-JD for l3vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:54:03 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GF5Xm-0002ey-B2 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:54:03 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2006 04:54:02 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,150,1154923200"; d="scan'208"; a="97743861:sNHT31492890"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7L8s2cB018813; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:54:02 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k7L8rxdM021764; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:53:58 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([10.82.216.47]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:53:57 -0400
Message-ID: <44E974B3.8030807@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:54:11 +0200
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeremy De Clercq <jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be>
References: <44E5E2A8.2080009@cisco.com> <44E5E80D.9070109@alcatel.be>
In-Reply-To: <44E5E80D.9070109@alcatel.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2006 08:53:58.0142 (UTC) FILETIME=[56F7C1E0:01C6C4FF]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1071; t=1156150442; x=1157014442; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=townsley@cisco.com; z=From:Mark=20Townsley=20<townsley@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20Proposal=20for=20moving=20CE=20and=20VR=20drafts=20forward |To:Jeremy=20De=20Clercq=20<jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DtWFjX2xPXKdtxuzg1nmXSSnkjLA=3D; b=oYkxcE+Wpl1GPbkZDLeZOibNqPLGEX3eo7AOv8RZQ00Hm/GqK2whJrd5i6H4TNf6gsAfMy36 9Q3oWiOU2egHWfLn5BRvvUAxc/Usj4TJmz2XP6sZIfDEZgtkSslhcav1;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=townsley@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for moving CE and VR drafts forward
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l3vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Thanks, Jeremy. I reviewed the document and issued an IETF Last Call 
(collectively with draft-ietf-l3vpn-ce-based-03.txt). Review comments 
still welcome from others.

- Mark

Jeremy De Clercq wrote:
> regarding the CE drafts:
>
>> 3. I need someone to help me with the status of draft-declercq, or at 
>> least to review it and tell me that it is OK. If it is ready to go to 
>> IETF LC, it will also unblock l3vpn-ce-based, and I will issue a 
>> similar IETF LC to #1.
>
> As far as I know the status is the following:
> - draft-declercq-l3vpn-ce-based-as-00.txt incorporates comments from 
> the working group (it's not really a -00 version, there have been 
> previous draft-declercq-*ppvpn*- versions)
> - it has been WG last called
> - a revision has been requested based on comments issued during AD 
> evaluation
> - I pointed out that (at that time), the comments were related to 
> another non-related draft. So I haven't revised the document.
>
> I'm still willing to update these documents if there are comments.
>
> Jeremy.
>