Re: New work items

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

Top post only..

Eric,
Apologies for taking so long to respond on this, thanks for
kicking off the thread!

Do other folks have comments on these items or other items that
should be added to the charter?  We'd like to have a new one in
front of the IESG before the .jp meeting.

Thanks!

-danny


On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Eric Rosen wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>