RE: Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN charter

["NAPIERALA, MARIA H (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

Maria> > One or two people cannot decide which MVPN documents/improvements are
Maria> > to be worked on by the WG and which are not, because the latter
Maria> > improvements do not fit those people “strategy”.

Thomas> You are taking words out of my mouth.

Well, you cannot claim the same... I am in support of all the documents/improvements listed in Ben's poll, whether or not I consider them useful or applicable to the specific SP network.
You, on the other hand, happen to object to those documents and improvements that do not align with your agenda. 
As Yiqun said, let's stop finding dubious (and "nuanced") reasons to prevent advancing valid and needed MVPN improvements.

Maria
 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> >> Of Thomas Morin
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:00 AM
> >> To: L3VPN
> >> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN
> charter
> >>
> >>
> >>    Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> Eric Rosen:
> >>> Thomas Morin:
> >>>> There are absolutely no technical reasons to couple acceptance of
> >> the
> >>>> Wildcard and the Extranet documents with either using PE-PE PIM in
> >> the
> >>>> absence of MI-PMSI or a new document on using Bidir P-Tunnels.
> >>> [...] I think the real decision to be made is whether the WG really
> >> wants to finish
> >>> the work and tie up all the loose ends, or whether the WG wants to
> >> continue
> >>> its dormancy and wait to see what gets implemented and deployed
> >> ("rough
> >>> consensus and running code").
> >> I don't think you really answered the question I asked, but based on
> >> your previous emails, I will still try to interpret your answer as a
> >> reply addressing my question : are you implying that if, beyond
> >> "Extranet mVPN" and "Wildcard S-PMSI", we do not also adopt some
> >> milestone on "bidir P-tunnel" and "PIM without an MI-PMSI", then we
> >> would not "tie up all loose ends" ?
> >>
> >> If, so let me disagree, and try to be a bit more nuanced than
> >> categorizing each item as being a "loose end" or not :
> >> - Extranet mVPN: this is a requirement of RFC4834, and the mVPN base
> >> specs do not document how this can be done, (i.e. can be seen as a
> >> "loose end")
> >> - Wildcard S-PMSI: there are two aspects to this subject, on the one
> >> hand it is an improvement on how S-PMSI bindings are advertised, on
> the
> >> other hand it is a key building block of the "PIM over MS-PMSI"
> >> approach
> >> you propose  (ie. *not* a "loose end")
> >> - mVPN fast-failover: targets improving convergence times for mVPN
> PE
> >> failures (i.e. targets an "improvement")
> >> - bidir P-tunnels: although the precise subject may not be fully
> >> defined
> >> yet, it seems to be (a) can be a possible P-tunnel scaling
> improvement
> >> in the general case but that the base specs may not fully cover
> (that
> >> part is in the gray zone between a "loose end" and an
> "improvement"),
> >> and (b) something at the core the core of the "PIM over MS-PMSI"
> >> approach (/that/ part is *not* a "loose end", but totally in the
> >> category of what targets an "improvement")
> >> - PIM without an MI-PMSI: based on the claims of your draft
> >> corresponding to this subject, it seems clear that this proposal
> >> targets
> >> an "improvement" of the number of P-tunnel states (i.e. not a "loose
> >> end")
> >>
> >> It seems to me that:
> >> * fixing "loose ends" should certainly be part of the work the
> working
> >> group should tackle (and as such, it makes sense to make Extranet
> mVPN
> >> a
> >> milestone)
> >> * we shall not sleep and wait for extensive feedback on all
> deployment
> >> variants to decide to work on improvements; if we do so, we'll be 3
> or
> >> 5
> >> years too late when some operator wants to deploy such an
> improvements;
> >> we should instead anticipate, but "anticipating" does not mean that
> >> each
> >> proposed/claimed improvement needs to become a milestone, or a
> standard
> >> track working group document, or even become a working group
> document
> >> at
> >> all; it does not mean either that these statuses have to be decided
> all
> >> at once today : this can very much be decided on a case by case
> basis
> >> (...this is what is done most of the time in the IETF !!)
> >> * if there is a need to make the working group charter more
> explicit,
> >> then we can certainly adopt milestones related to stuff that people
> >> seem
> >> to agree they are valid subjects (that includes the "Wildcard S-
> PMSI"
> >> idea)
> >>
> >> Said differently, I think that the milestones in Ben Niven-Jenkins'
> >> "Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN charter" form a
> >> good
> >> set of milestones.
> >>
> >> -Thomas