RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 15:15 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 B1AEF3A6916; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:15:48 -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 030EE3A6916 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 iN5vBcEI2ytb for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1783A68DE for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1224861399!22785773!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 20209 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2008 15:16:40 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Oct 2008 15:16:40 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9OFGc3q024679; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:16:39 -0400
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.19]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9OFGYCQ024597; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:16:35 -0400
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 Protocol and Morin Drafts
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:16:23 -0400
Message-ID: <D6CB948F7AFD6F4881D4B4F80C8509AA015298F3@gaalpa1msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F3A9@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Thread-Index: Ack0VD1jbm+REXhnQgS5ATPp1Q8+wAA0CP2AADEWgZA=
References: <0E3033029745FB4C8BE6F1A3752FAE59E791DF@misout7msgusr7b.ugd.att.com><1224680522.20832.74.camel@l-at11168.FTRD><2B7BA8FF-2819-451D-B018-5EB9DFFE764B@cisco.com> <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F3A9@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
To: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com>, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>
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


> create 2 drafts, one documenting a PIM based solutions set, and an
> other based on BGP. Both moving forward on standards track. These

Agree - if the documents are not clear as is, should clean up the
documents vs. needing to refer to a 3rd document.

> documents don't need to make comparisons between BGP and PIM (as is
> done in the Morin draft), because this creates endless discussions
> and don't get us anywhere. It just needs to document how the
> different modules work together so that vendors can be interoperable.
> Each customer can choose the preferred approach and talk to the
> vendor for an implementation.

The Morin draft has been very helpful but it is still very confusing on
it's intention/impact - is it a requirements (non-solution favoring)
document or a comparison document which will impact the two other
drafts? It states in the abstract "mechanisms standardization should
favor". Does the sentence mean that non-favored mechanisms (e.g.
PIM-based) will be non-standards track? I'd favor as Nabil suggested, a
requirements document (with updates). Either it should have a re-write
before wg document status or else a clearly defined scope if it's a wg
document.

Deborah