RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

You could have sent this mail three times (instead of merely two) and
not only with underlined capitalized HTML text, but also a bold red
font. Few people know about this, but it can be counted as a dozen of
"votes"... ;)

Cheers,

-Thomas


SZELA, MATEUSZ W (MATT), ATTLABS :
> 
> 
>          Marshall & Danny et al,
>         
>         I do NOT SUPPORT this draft.
>         
>         The proposed draft, does not consider the needs and
>         requirements of large Service Providers with huge MVPN
>         deployed base that services critical business customers.
>         
>         The correct approach is to poll Service Providers, who use
>         MVPN now, first and agree on a set of requirements that
>         consider the needs of the SP and end customers.
>         
>         The requirements must consider the needs of the Business
>         Customers who use large SP MVPN networks.
>         
>         
>         Tx,
>         
>         Matt W. Szela 
>         Director, 
>         New Technology Product Dev. Eng. 
>         AT&T Laboratories 
>         [e-mail] 
>         v: 732-420-6828 
>         c: 732-208-5341
>         
>         -----Original Message----- 
>         From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>         On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks 
>         Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:04 AM 
>         To: [e-mail] 
>         Cc: Ross Callon 
>         Subject: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts 
>         
>         This email starts a 3 week call for input, to expire October
>         23, 2008,  
>         for the following steps:
>         
>         1.) To accept draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 as a
>         working 
>         group document;  and
>         
>         2.) To turn this document into a requirements draft, with
>         mandatory to 
>         implement features for an interoperable implementation. The
>         authors 
>         have indicated that they are willing to do this.
>         
>         Our intention is, if this approach is accepted, to then begin
>         WG last 
>         call to submit to the IESG for publication:
>         
>         draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast 
>         draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
>         
>         We expect that these two documents will be submitted more or
>         less as is 
>         (i.e., certainly with any new bug fixes or other necessary
>         corrections  
>         and 
>         improvements, but without specific mandatory to implement
>         feature 
>         description in those drafts).
>         
>         Please respond to the list with your recommendations for these
>         two 
>         courses of action.
>         
>         Regards 
>         Marshall & Danny
>