RE: Advancing the Multicast L3VPN protocol drafts

<bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 06 August 2008 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l3vpn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CA43A6C3B; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
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 AC8F43A6B9E for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 J34de8WuAI-k for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCD33A6A3F for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:44:30 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Advancing the Multicast L3VPN protocol drafts
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:34:57 +0200
Message-ID: <5A0FF108221C7C4E85738678804B567C06716C6B@ftrdmel3>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Advancing the Multicast L3VPN protocol drafts
Thread-Index: Acj3wUaFWlI/gP3KS6u3WiYbECPbjwAEdc5Q
References: <94C5311E-553D-42BF-A0FA-34EAF24A5238@multicasttech.com>
From: bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com
To: tme@multicasttech.com, l3vpn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2008 15:44:30.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[50894110:01C8F7DB]
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org


> While there was rough consensus in Dublin to decouple the
> protocol drafts from the choice of how to describe the use of those
> protocols
> to create interoperable Multicast VPNs, and to progress the protocol
> drafts immediately,
> such decisions must be confirmed by this list.
> 
> The essence of the "decoupling" proposal is that the protocol
> documents will progress
> (which will clearly take some time) while the Working Group decides
> what profile drafts,
> requirement drafts, etc., will accompany them.

IINM, in essence the question seems: should the WG submit to the IESG a
document as a proposed standard that does not allow for interoperable
equipments? And without a clear & agreed path toward defining
interoperability.

Before collecting answers, I wonder if we shouldn't first discuss and
agree on the question(s) to be asked to the L3 VPN WG.

For example Thomas Morin proposed the following questions:

> Summary
> - question 1 with two choices :
>    (a) adopt draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03
>    (b) adopt a profile-based approach
> - question 2 (yes/no) : should the working group progress
draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast-vpn and draft-..-mcast-vpn-bgp to the IESG
without the WG having adopted a document describing how interoperability
can happen ? (yes or no)


Shouldn't the WG be proposed and polled on at least an alternative to
the profile option?


> 
> Therefore :
> 
> Should the L3VPN WG submit both
> 
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast  AND
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp to the IESG
> 
> as multicast VPN solutions and as proposed standards ?
> 
> If you support this proposal  please
> reply with a "yes", if you're opposed, reply with a "no".
> 
> 
> While comments and suggestions are welcomed, please make your
> position clear in your response. Note that this is not a WG Last Call
on
> these documents, but a request for a WG decision.
> 
> Please provide any feedback no later than August 21, 2008.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks