Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

> beyond what is already covered by the base mVPN specs recently submitted
> to the IESG [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06#section-3.2]. 
> Nobody commented against this part of the document, even though the
> document was debated in length on many other points.

There are many successful deployments of the UDP based mechanism and many of these customers don't even care to come to IETF to debate this. There is a perfectly valid deployment reason to allow a simple extension to the UDP based mechanism, even if it goes against your recommendation.

I vote for option 1.


Thx,

Ice.


> 
> Eric mentioned the promise made between co-authors of mVPN specs and an
> A-D as a key argument to adopt the IPv6-related part of this draft, even
> though this promise did not involve the working group.   By comparison,
> strong and recent working group consensus to not extend the UDP-based
> signaling to other types of P-tunnels, looks to me as a reason at least
> as good to *not* adopt a document proposition such an extension.
> 
> So well, I don't think that adopting the document with section 3.1
> should even be considered, and in any case I'm opposed the adoption of
> the document if it includes that section.
> 
> -Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> [e-mail]:
>> Colleagues,
>> 
>> This e-mail is to start a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt
>> draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document.
>> 
>> As there was some discussion in Anaheim on section 3.1 of the draft, we will
>> follow Eric's suggestion in his mail of 16th April (
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html).
>> 
>> Therefore please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this
>> message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the following three
>> options:
>> 
>> 1) Yes/Support for the entire of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be
>> adopted as a L3VPN WG document.
>> 
>> 2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be adopted as a
>> WG document provided section 3.1 is removed.
>> 
>> 3) No/Do not support draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 being adopted as
>> a WG document at all.
>> 
>> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>>