New work items

Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Mon, 24 August 2009 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5DF3A6E62 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sbNVy4jJ7uf2 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F276A3A6DB6 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,266,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="55288592"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2009 15:12:12 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7OFCBdK007889; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:12:11 -0400
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7OFCAA0026065; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:12:10 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7OFCAmm021820; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:12:10 -0400
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
Subject: New work items
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.2; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:12:10 -0400
Message-ID: <21819.1251126730@erosen-linux>
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1792; t=1251126731; x=1251990731; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Rosen=20<erosen@cisco.com> |Subject:=20New=20work=20items |Sender:=20 |To:=20l3vpn@ietf.org; bh=F2xkJBKF1cBu2INVQ6E+9YxkhMfzebtAr7k/AnuBOr8=; b=e5iX3ojM8P6+QXOjZltVjj1X1VOKdbArsUc04f5lkRfEfcOwxrAQ+60tfg IIqOnQIDOcgCB/i6/FVw9heZ3gJNeP719C20xl0ngwGvu3qETfjHl5Mdf0wR WjEJ9tWj0V;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=erosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:12:10 -0000

I read the following in the L3VPN WG minutes:

Danny McPherson:

    There is work.  There are things that need to be considered. We should
    revisit our milestones now that the MVPN documents have been submitted
    to the IESG, that was a gate for an official new work in the WG, now we
    can consider new work items.

I am glad to see that it is finally time to consider new work items.  I have
been collecting a bunch of new work items for some time in draft-rosen-
l3vpn-mvpn-mspmsi:

- S-PMSI Join extensions (for MPLS and for MVPNv6)

- Wild card support in S-PMSI A-D routes and S-PMSI Joins

- Finish the specification for the use of bidirectional P-tunnels

- Using PIM as PE-PE control plane, but without using MI-PMSI (i.e.,
  eliminating the use of trees that only carry control packets)

- Extranet support using PIM control plane

- Offering MVPN service with PIM control plane in concert with unicast "Hub
  and Spoke" VPN service and anycast-source service.

I think the draft mentioned above is an excellent basis for future work.
That draft could really be turned into a half dozen or so different drafts,
each addressing a particular topic, if the WG prefers that approach.  (I
kept them all in one document primarily to make it easier for me to manage
during the period when the WG was not considering new work items.)

So I would like to propose each of the above-listed items as a new work
item for the WG.

I would also like to solicit feedback about the above-mentioned document,
e.g., is it acceptable as a WG draft, would it be better to split it up and
ask each this question about each part, does anyone have any technical
comments on it?

Feedback from other than the usual suspects would be especially valuable ;-)