Comments on draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-00

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

In view of the somewhat heated discussion, I think that it is critical to 
get the title and Abstract of this draft right so that we have a good 
context within which to review its content.

Can I float the changes below as a straw man to produce some text that will 
get a bit more focus in the draft?

Thanks,
Adrian

===
OLD

     Considerations about Multicast for BGP/MPLS VPN Standardization
                 draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-00

Abstract

   The current proposal for multicast in BGP/MPLS includes multiple
   alternative mechanisms for some of the required building blocks of
   the solution. The aim of this document is to leverage previously
   documented requirements to identify the key elements and help move
   forward solution design, toward the definition of a standard having a
   well defined set of mandatory procedures.  The different proposed
   alternative mechanisms are examined in the light of requirements
   identified for multicast in L3VPNs, and suggestions are made about
   which of these mechanisms standardization should favor.  Issues
   related to existing deployments of early implementations are also
   addressed.

===
NEW

      Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN Solution
                draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-00

Abstract

   More that one set of mechanisms to support multicast in a layer 3
   BGP/MPLS VPN has been defined. These are presented in the documents
   that define them as optional building blocks.

   To enable interoperability between implementations, this document
   defines a subset of features that is considered mandatory for a
   multicast BGP/MPLS VPN implementation. This will help implementers
   and deployers understand which L3VPN multicast requirements are best
   satisfied by each option.
===