RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

["RAMSAROOP, JEEWAN P, ATTLABS" <[e-mail]>]

I vote NO.

The correct sequence is to agree on the MVPN requirements which are
stated in draft-mnapierala-part-reqt, which represents the requirements
from a large service provider, with many hundreds of in-service M-VPNs,
many thousands of MVPN ports, and many different multicast application
on those M-VPNs. Our requirements come from several years of experience
with this technology.

Jeewan Ramsaroop
Director New Technology Development
AT&T Labs.  

-----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