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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Ice,

> 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.

The recommendation is *not* just Thomas' recommendation - it is the
recommendation of the L3VPN WG. So, extending the UDP-based S-PMSI
signaling goes against recommendation of L3VPN WG !

While there is nothing that would force a particular service provider
to come to IETF and to participate in L3VPN WG, it does not mean
that L3VPN WG has to standardize every possible option that every
possible service provider may want. 

Yakov.

> 
> 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 wi
ll
> >> 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 thr
ee
> >> 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 a
s
> >> a WG document at all.
> >> 
> >> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.
> >> 
> >> Ben
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>