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

[<[e-mail]>]

John,

Same question to you that I just asked Thomas:

Does this mean that you would support adoption of the document if section
3.1 was removed or that you object to the adoption of the document in
general?

Thanks
Ben

[I am trying to separate out whether the ongoing debate is really just about
Section 3.1 of the document or there are more general objections to the
document]


On 27/04/2010 18:27, "John E Drake" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Thomas Morin
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:45 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a
>> L3VPN WG document
>> 
>> Ben, Colleagues,
>> 
>> The working group has recently submitted to the IESG a document that
>> highlights the drawbacks of the UDP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism,
>> compared to the BGP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism, and specifically
>> recommends against extending the UDP-based scheme for types of tunnels
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>>