From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 01 11:04:47 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HMnl5-0005VT-QK; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:03:55 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMnl5-0005VI-5a
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:03:55 -0500
Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com ([47.140.192.55])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMnl3-00039G-Tr
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:03:55 -0500
Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com
	[47.129.230.97])
	by zrtps0kn.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id
	l21G3m503675; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:03:49 -0500 (EST)
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
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:03:30 -0500
Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C0216FC@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <A3A8474A-1312-4165-9A1C-A3C105417FDC@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
Thread-Index: AcdbCRqoNCe+DdmlRtq1Ab2oL5PgUABD5Z3A
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02D53298@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<A3A8474A-1312-4165-9A1C-A3C105417FDC@castlepoint.net>
From: "Dinesh Mohan" <mohand@nortel.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,
	"Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

Please see inline marked DM>> (rest of email snipped for clarity)

---
Dinesh

<snipped>

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my originally proposed text or follow-up
comments.  Let me try again, this time using a different approach.

DM>> This is indeed a different approach (see below) :-)

Can we agree that there is a portion of the VPLS architecture that
relates to native Ethernet, for example, when the communication path
between an MTU-s and an upstream PE-rs is using Q-in-Q encapsulation?
If yes, then I have not seen any *requirement* in the requirements
section to acknowledge that the goal of any proposed solution is to, at
most, inter-work with -- but, MUST NOT break! -- existing IEEE/ITU OAM
standards, related to the native Ethernet service-layer of VPLS, in
order to provide an "end-to-end" solution for VPLS OAM.

There are some requirements in Section 6.11, (Transport Independence),
related to OAM transport independence & interworking/ adaptation.
However, what I am recommending is that you be more specific in Section
6 and clearly articulate that VPLS OAM solutions MUST NOT: a) break
existing IEEE/ITU OAM protocols; or, b) define extensions or wholly new,
competing OAM messages for IEEE/ITU OAM protocols.  Clearly, this would
indicate to solutions designers that if a solution requires (b), they
had better work those changes through the IEEE/ITU and, only after said
changes, extensions, etc. =20
are approved in the appropriate SDO, may a VPLS OAM solution consider
interworking with that protocol.

DM>> Even though there seems to be a NEW kinds of requirement being
proposed here which suggest to mention what is not to be done (bit odd,
since there are certainly many other things that should also not be
done, e.g. working independently in this group on extending LSP ping for
example, or VCCV etc.), fortunately, there is no disagreement on this
point and I will be more than willing to add a statement to this effect
in the document.

However, at the same time, in the interest of progressing this document
and not causing an endless loop to create new requirements at the last
minute, I would like to ask if similar requirements were captured in
L2VPN Requirements RFC? Hasn't this been the understanding of the IETF
in general that any time solutions are proposed which require extension
of protocols owned by other SDOs or groups, the work has to be carried
out in appropriate bodies?

<snipped>




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 01 11:35:12 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HMoEf-0001et-VA; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:34:29 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoEe-0001dK-RP
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:34:28 -0500
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com ([47.129.242.57])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMoEJ-0007ZX-SX
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:34:28 -0500
Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com
	[47.129.230.97])
	by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id
	l21GY3B28063; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:34:03 -0500 (EST)
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
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:34:01 -0500
Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C021787@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <5189EEF7-7A64-4BE2-827B-5FCA938B3258@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
Thread-Index: AcdbCr2DjNNTW7cSQTKQYukduNzWaQBE9l8g
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02CF69DC@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<78DA378D-8CF1-4A46-A128-B8C0B9553C96@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0BF673C9@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<5189EEF7-7A64-4BE2-827B-5FCA938B3258@castlepoint.net>
From: "Dinesh Mohan" <mohand@nortel.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3971661e40967acfc35f708dd5f33760
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

I agree with the intent here to have clear requirements, however, as
noted in the other email response, not sure about the non-requirements
which are implicit in the group activities and policies. I am hoping
that at the requirements level, we are not presupposing any solutions,
though we may certainly have a view of the solution.

IMO, we could go ahead with the text proposed by Ali, and if you insist,
add a statement to the effect that Ethernet OAM extensions, if any,
required by the solutions should be pursued in relevant SDOs, and
proceed with the last call such that we can move the focus on solution
drafts. Let us know your thoughts.

---
Dinesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:33 AM
To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05
[FrameworkReview]

Dinesh,

On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Dinesh Mohan wrote:
> Shane,
>
> Regarding your last comment: even the text proposed by you can be=20
> cited to be confusing since on one hand it implies that "bridge=20
> module" is defined in the L2VPN framework - "..."bridge module", as=20
> defined in the framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664].." - and then the text=20
> suggests that these are outside the scope since there are covered in=20
> IEEE standards - "...are outside of the scope of this document and the

> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered in

> IEEE standards...."
>
> At this stage we seem to be simply wordsmithing. This document has=20
> been under review for last 2+ years and received extensive commments=20
> from you and has been updated numerous times, version -07 being a=20
> proof of that.
>
> The biggest concern regarding your proposed text is that it implies to

> rule out the details of the bridge module, which is OK IMO from the=20
> framework and requirements draft and if I understand correctly was=20
> stated by originally proposed text, however it also rules out from=20
> solutions perspective, and I see no reason for doing such in the=20
> framework or requirements document.

Perhaps my point wasn't coming across clearly in my previous attempts.
Please refer to the e-mail where I just responded to Ali to see if that
clears things up.


> Regarding the germane point, at least I am not personally aware of=20
> requirements having been qualified in this manner in past, please=20
> advise if this is not the case. Whether a solution is standards track=20
> or informational track should not influence the requirements, so far=20
> as we do not have disagreements on the requirements. This is infact a=20
> good reason why solutions should follow requirements instead of other=20
> way round. Engineering requirements from solutions will be=20
> counterproductive, in my view.

IMO, the point of requirements is to, as much as possible, constrain and
guide the "scope" of proposed solutions, so that solutions:
a)  provide benefit to the end-users who will use them;
b)  avoid arguments down the road interpreting what requirements really
meant; and, most importantly,
c)  assuming there are multiple, competing solutions, then the
requirements document should be the main reference to evaluate how
completely each solution satisfies the requirements.

IOW, the more clear the requirements, the more benefit I believe it
provides everyone down the road.

-shane



> Hopefully, we can get to the last call and start addressing the=20
> solutions, which is likely what you are concerned about and likely the

> group is also interested in addressing, including us.
>
> Cheers,
> ---
> Dinesh
>
> <snipped>
>>>> "The details regarding bridge OAM operation for MTU-s and
>>> PE-rs (e.g.,
>>>> OAM protocols for Ethernet) are outside of the scope of
>>> this document
>>>> as they are covered in IEEE standards unless there is an
>>> Interaction
>>>> between these protocols and MPLS/IP protocols."
>>>
>>> May I suggest the above be rephrased as follows, and be put as a new
>>> paragraph:
>>> ---snip---
>>> The details regarding the "bridge module", as defined in the=20
>>> framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664], of the PE-rs as well as the native=20
>>> Ethernet MTU-s are outside of the scope of this document and the=20
>>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered=20
>>> in IEEE standards.  The requirements in this draft apply to the=20
>>> "VPLS
>
>>> Forwarder" and the "Emulated LAN interface", which connects the VPLS

>>> Forwarder to the bridge module.
>>> ---snip---
>>>
>>
>> That is NOT correct !! If you refer to both RFC 4465 and RFC 4464, an

>> end-to-end VPLS is defined to include bridge module, forwarder, and=20
>> the set of PWs. I know better, I helped the authors with these=20
>> definitions at the time of the writing of these RFCs. For example
>> RFC4465 says: "
>> End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a LAN emulation=20
>> module
>
>> ([RFC4664])." Therefore, when we define OAM for the end-to-end VPLS=20
>> service it must include bridge module.
>
> I don't understand.  Your explanation above is confusing for two
> reasons:
> 1)  First, if you look above at the top-most comment in this thread=20
> (relative to the Framework section) you agree that the "details=20
> regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs ... are outside the=20
> scope of this document as they are covered in the IEEE standards".
> Now, you seem to be saying the opposite in the Requirements section.
> Specifically, that the above statement was irrelevant and now you are=20
> implying that you do want/need to duplicate IEEE standards in the=20
> requirements for OAM solutions that will be proposed for VPLS/VPWS.
> Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rationale behind your explanation

> or intent?
> 2)  Second, and much more germane to the requirements section, is what
> portion(s) of the requirements section apply to OAM solutions that=20
> will go Standards Track and, separately, what requirement(s) apply to=20
> OAM solutions that may go Informational, (assuming they are not=20
> duplicating or interfering with standards/protocols from other SDO's)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -shane
>





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 01 15:38:02 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HMs16-000333-C3; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:36:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMs15-00031v-5q
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:36:43 -0500
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMs13-0008Qz-P0
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:36:43 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A346452B;
	Thu,  1 Mar 2007 13:36:30 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <45E73950.9040004@castlepoint.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:36:32 -0700
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dinesh Mohan <mohand@nortel.com>
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02D53298@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<A3A8474A-1312-4165-9A1C-A3C105417FDC@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C0216FC@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C0216FC@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Dinesh,

Dinesh Mohan wrote:
> Shane,
> 
> Please see inline marked DM>> (rest of email snipped for clarity)
> 
> ---
> Dinesh
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Perhaps I wasn't clear in my originally proposed text or follow-up
> comments.  Let me try again, this time using a different approach.
> 
> DM>> This is indeed a different approach (see below) :-)
> 
> Can we agree that there is a portion of the VPLS architecture that
> relates to native Ethernet, for example, when the communication path
> between an MTU-s and an upstream PE-rs is using Q-in-Q encapsulation?
> If yes, then I have not seen any *requirement* in the requirements
> section to acknowledge that the goal of any proposed solution is to, at
> most, inter-work with -- but, MUST NOT break! -- existing IEEE/ITU OAM
> standards, related to the native Ethernet service-layer of VPLS, in
> order to provide an "end-to-end" solution for VPLS OAM.
> 
> There are some requirements in Section 6.11, (Transport Independence),
> related to OAM transport independence & interworking/ adaptation.
> However, what I am recommending is that you be more specific in Section
> 6 and clearly articulate that VPLS OAM solutions MUST NOT: a) break
> existing IEEE/ITU OAM protocols; or, b) define extensions or wholly new,
> competing OAM messages for IEEE/ITU OAM protocols.  Clearly, this would
> indicate to solutions designers that if a solution requires (b), they
> had better work those changes through the IEEE/ITU and, only after said
> changes, extensions, etc.  
> are approved in the appropriate SDO, may a VPLS OAM solution consider
> interworking with that protocol.
> 
> DM>> Even though there seems to be a NEW kinds of requirement being
> proposed here which suggest to mention what is not to be done (bit odd,
> since there are certainly many other things that should also not be
> done, e.g. working independently in this group on extending LSP ping for
> example, or VCCV etc.), fortunately, there is no disagreement on this
> point and I will be more than willing to add a statement to this effect
> in the document.

First, it certainly doesn't hurt, and more than likely helps, explain 
what should NOT be done as much as what SHOULD be done with respect to 
requirements that solutions will ultimately be derived from.  In fact, 
in looking at the reqmt's in this particular draft, it is heavily biased 
toward what should/must be done, rather than what should not or must not 
be done.  However, it's too late to change that now.

Second, I recognize your point that we can't possibly call out every 
requirement and non-requirement.  OTOH, at least having this discussion, 
particularly with a wider audience, leads to a more explicit 
understanding of the eventual goal and an expectation around how we 
might achieve that goal, rather than what is implied or inferred based 
on [assumed] previous precedent.


> However, at the same time, in the interest of progressing this document
> and not causing an endless loop to create new requirements at the last
> minute, I would like to ask if similar requirements were captured in
> L2VPN Requirements RFC? Hasn't this been the understanding of the IETF
> in general that any time solutions are proposed which require extension
> of protocols owned by other SDOs or groups, the work has to be carried
> out in appropriate bodies?

With respect to precedent, I would refer you specifically to Section 
5.1, "Scope of Emulation", in RFC 4665:
    L2VPN protocols SHOULD NOT interfere with existing Layer 2 protocols
    and standards of the Layer 2 network the customer is managing.  If
    they impact customer Layer 2 protocols that are sent over the VPLS,
    then these impacts MUST be documented.

Since I don't see it called out specifically in the OAM draft, do we 
assume that draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk agrees with the above 
statement relative to Ethernet OAM protocols?  I don't see why the OAM 
draft has any reason to disagree with RFC 4665, however if you look at 
R10b of Section 6.11, "Transport Indedepence":
---snip---
(R10b) VPLS OAM MAY allow adaptation/interworking with specific
transport/network OAM functions. For example, this would be useful
to allow Fault Notifications from transport/network layer(s) to be
sent to the VPLS service layer.
---snip---

The "_adaptation/interworking_ with specific transport/_network_ OAM 
functions" implies that a VPLS OAM solution may, in fact, interfere with 
"existing Layer 2 protocols and standards of the Layer 2 network".  I'm 
not going to argue about the words 'adaptation' and 'interworking', 
rather the larger points here are:
a) Does Section 6.11 in the OAM draft conflict with RFC 4665?  (Based on 
your response, it sounds like you agree it doesn't).
b) Since it doesn't conflict with RFC 4665, why can't you just 
explicitly say that any solutions must follow the same precedent?

-shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 01 18:19:32 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HMuLE-0000Xz-Oe; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:05:40 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMuLC-0000WE-Je
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:05:38 -0500
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMuL7-0005zf-0p
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:05:35 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A29564777;
	Thu,  1 Mar 2007 14:01:09 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <45E73F19.5050806@castlepoint.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:01:13 -0700
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dinesh Mohan <mohand@nortel.com>
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02CF69DC@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<78DA378D-8CF1-4A46-A128-B8C0B9553C96@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0BF673C9@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<5189EEF7-7A64-4BE2-827B-5FCA938B3258@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C021787@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C021787@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0cff8c3ec906d056784362c06f5f88c1
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Dinesh,

Dinesh Mohan wrote:
> Shane,
> 
> I agree with the intent here to have clear requirements, however, as
> noted in the other email response, not sure about the non-requirements
> which are implicit in the group activities and policies. I am hoping
> that at the requirements level, we are not presupposing any solutions,
> though we may certainly have a view of the solution.
> 
> IMO, we could go ahead with the text proposed by Ali, and if you insist,
> add a statement to the effect that Ethernet OAM extensions, if any,
> required by the solutions should be pursued in relevant SDOs, and
> proceed with the last call such that we can move the focus on solution
> drafts. Let us know your thoughts.

Rather than rush this OAM draft through at the last minute based on 
assumptions, let's make sure that everyone is clear *now* that it 
doesn't conflict with past precedent and even requirements, etc. that 
got us here.  I think we're finally in general agreement on how to solve 
this concern so I'm not sure the value of belaboring this point.

I think you should scrap the text Ali proposed and say something more 
along the lines of Section 5.1 in RFC 4665, or at least refer to it, in 
Section 6 & 7 of the OAM draft as that will be much more clear.  I 
apologize if the original text I suggested was not clear as to my 
concerns and a proposed direction on how to resolve it.

If you agree with my suggestion, please propose text to the list on how 
you think it's best to address it.  After we've had a chance to look at 
that proposed text, fold it in to the OAM draft, publish it and we 
should then be ready for a WG LC.

Also, let's roll this discussion back in to the other e-mail, so we have 
only a single place to discuss it.

-shane


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:33 AM
> To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
> Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05
> [FrameworkReview]
> 
> Dinesh,
> 
> On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Dinesh Mohan wrote:
>> Shane,
>>
>> Regarding your last comment: even the text proposed by you can be 
>> cited to be confusing since on one hand it implies that "bridge 
>> module" is defined in the L2VPN framework - "..."bridge module", as 
>> defined in the framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664].." - and then the text 
>> suggests that these are outside the scope since there are covered in 
>> IEEE standards - "...are outside of the scope of this document and the
> 
>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered in
> 
>> IEEE standards...."
>>
>> At this stage we seem to be simply wordsmithing. This document has 
>> been under review for last 2+ years and received extensive commments 
>> from you and has been updated numerous times, version -07 being a 
>> proof of that.
>>
>> The biggest concern regarding your proposed text is that it implies to
> 
>> rule out the details of the bridge module, which is OK IMO from the 
>> framework and requirements draft and if I understand correctly was 
>> stated by originally proposed text, however it also rules out from 
>> solutions perspective, and I see no reason for doing such in the 
>> framework or requirements document.
> 
> Perhaps my point wasn't coming across clearly in my previous attempts.
> Please refer to the e-mail where I just responded to Ali to see if that
> clears things up.
> 
> 
>> Regarding the germane point, at least I am not personally aware of 
>> requirements having been qualified in this manner in past, please 
>> advise if this is not the case. Whether a solution is standards track 
>> or informational track should not influence the requirements, so far 
>> as we do not have disagreements on the requirements. This is infact a 
>> good reason why solutions should follow requirements instead of other 
>> way round. Engineering requirements from solutions will be 
>> counterproductive, in my view.
> 
> IMO, the point of requirements is to, as much as possible, constrain and
> guide the "scope" of proposed solutions, so that solutions:
> a)  provide benefit to the end-users who will use them;
> b)  avoid arguments down the road interpreting what requirements really
> meant; and, most importantly,
> c)  assuming there are multiple, competing solutions, then the
> requirements document should be the main reference to evaluate how
> completely each solution satisfies the requirements.
> 
> IOW, the more clear the requirements, the more benefit I believe it
> provides everyone down the road.
> 
> -shane
> 
> 
> 
>> Hopefully, we can get to the last call and start addressing the 
>> solutions, which is likely what you are concerned about and likely the
> 
>> group is also interested in addressing, including us.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ---
>> Dinesh
>>
>> <snipped>
>>>>> "The details regarding bridge OAM operation for MTU-s and
>>>> PE-rs (e.g.,
>>>>> OAM protocols for Ethernet) are outside of the scope of
>>>> this document
>>>>> as they are covered in IEEE standards unless there is an
>>>> Interaction
>>>>> between these protocols and MPLS/IP protocols."
>>>> May I suggest the above be rephrased as follows, and be put as a new
>>>> paragraph:
>>>> ---snip---
>>>> The details regarding the "bridge module", as defined in the 
>>>> framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664], of the PE-rs as well as the native 
>>>> Ethernet MTU-s are outside of the scope of this document and the 
>>>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered 
>>>> in IEEE standards.  The requirements in this draft apply to the 
>>>> "VPLS
>>>> Forwarder" and the "Emulated LAN interface", which connects the VPLS
> 
>>>> Forwarder to the bridge module.
>>>> ---snip---
>>>>
>>> That is NOT correct !! If you refer to both RFC 4465 and RFC 4464, an
> 
>>> end-to-end VPLS is defined to include bridge module, forwarder, and 
>>> the set of PWs. I know better, I helped the authors with these 
>>> definitions at the time of the writing of these RFCs. For example
>>> RFC4465 says: "
>>> End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a LAN emulation 
>>> module
>>> ([RFC4664])." Therefore, when we define OAM for the end-to-end VPLS 
>>> service it must include bridge module.
>> I don't understand.  Your explanation above is confusing for two
>> reasons:
>> 1)  First, if you look above at the top-most comment in this thread 
>> (relative to the Framework section) you agree that the "details 
>> regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs ... are outside the 
>> scope of this document as they are covered in the IEEE standards".
>> Now, you seem to be saying the opposite in the Requirements section.
>> Specifically, that the above statement was irrelevant and now you are 
>> implying that you do want/need to duplicate IEEE standards in the 
>> requirements for OAM solutions that will be proposed for VPLS/VPWS.
>> Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rationale behind your explanation
> 
>> or intent?
>> 2)  Second, and much more germane to the requirements section, is what
>> portion(s) of the requirements section apply to OAM solutions that 
>> will go Standards Track and, separately, what requirement(s) apply to 
>> OAM solutions that may go Informational, (assuming they are not 
>> duplicating or interfering with standards/protocols from other SDO's)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -shane
>>
> 





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 02 18:51:28 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HNHVX-00064W-Ld; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:49:51 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNHVX-00064N-BO
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:49:51 -0500
Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com ([47.140.192.55])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNHVV-0000F2-Tz
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:49:51 -0500
Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com
	[47.129.230.97])
	by zrtps0kn.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id
	l22NngS02167; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:49:43 -0500 (EST)
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
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:48:54 -0500
Message-ID: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C08561C@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <45E73F19.5050806@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
Thread-Index: AcdcV/CDCn2ktRWYR8WT835P7bxHqwAyuQyg
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02CF69DC@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<78DA378D-8CF1-4A46-A128-B8C0B9553C96@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0BF673C9@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<5189EEF7-7A64-4BE2-827B-5FCA938B3258@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C021787@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<45E73F19.5050806@castlepoint.net>
From: "Dinesh Mohan" <mohand@nortel.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 325b777e1a3a618c889460b612a65510
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

I will add the following text at the start of Section 6 and 7:

"It is noted that OAM solutions that meet the following requirements may
make use of existing OAM mechanisms e.g. Ethernet OAM, VCCV, etc.
however must not break these existing OAM mechanisms. If extensions are
required to existing OAM mechanisms, these should be coordinated with
relevant groups responsible for these OAM mechanisms."

In light of recent discussion and your agreement with the above
direction, I will remove the following text proposed earlier by Ali to
resolve your related comment:

Section 4.1.1:
The details regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs (e.g.,
Ethernet encapsulation format, customer's Ethernet control protocol
handling, etc.) are outside of the scope of this document as they are
covered in IEEE standards unless there is an Interaction between these
protocols and VPLS or VPWS protocols.

Section 6:
The details regarding "bridge module" operation and its associated
protocols are outside of the scope of this document as they are covered
in IEEE standards unless there is an Interaction between these protocols
and VPLS/VPWS protocols.

Note: To meet the submission deadline, I will incorporate the changes
and submit the draft. Hopefully, this resolves all outstanding issues.

---
Dinesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:01 PM
To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05
[FrameworkReview]

Dinesh,

Dinesh Mohan wrote:
> Shane,
>=20
> I agree with the intent here to have clear requirements, however, as=20
> noted in the other email response, not sure about the non-requirements

> which are implicit in the group activities and policies. I am hoping=20
> that at the requirements level, we are not presupposing any solutions,

> though we may certainly have a view of the solution.
>=20
> IMO, we could go ahead with the text proposed by Ali, and if you=20
> insist, add a statement to the effect that Ethernet OAM extensions, if

> any, required by the solutions should be pursued in relevant SDOs, and

> proceed with the last call such that we can move the focus on solution

> drafts. Let us know your thoughts.

Rather than rush this OAM draft through at the last minute based on
assumptions, let's make sure that everyone is clear *now* that it
doesn't conflict with past precedent and even requirements, etc. that
got us here.  I think we're finally in general agreement on how to solve
this concern so I'm not sure the value of belaboring this point.
I think you should scrap the text Ali proposed and say something more
along the lines of Section 5.1 in RFC 4665, or at least refer to it, in
Section 6 & 7 of the OAM draft as that will be much more clear.  I
apologize if the original text I suggested was not clear as to my
concerns and a proposed direction on how to resolve it.

If you agree with my suggestion, please propose text to the list on how
you think it's best to address it.  After we've had a chance to look at
that proposed text, fold it in to the OAM draft, publish it and we
should then be ready for a WG LC.

Also, let's roll this discussion back in to the other e-mail, so we have
only a single place to discuss it.

-shane


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:33 AM
> To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
> Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05=20
> [FrameworkReview]
>=20
> Dinesh,
>=20
> On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Dinesh Mohan wrote:
>> Shane,
>>
>> Regarding your last comment: even the text proposed by you can be=20
>> cited to be confusing since on one hand it implies that "bridge=20
>> module" is defined in the L2VPN framework - "..."bridge module", as=20
>> defined in the framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664].." - and then the text=20
>> suggests that these are outside the scope since there are covered in=20
>> IEEE standards - "...are outside of the scope of this document and=20
>> the
>=20
>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered=20
>> in
>=20
>> IEEE standards...."
>>
>> At this stage we seem to be simply wordsmithing. This document has=20
>> been under review for last 2+ years and received extensive commments=20
>> from you and has been updated numerous times, version -07 being a=20
>> proof of that.
>>
>> The biggest concern regarding your proposed text is that it implies=20
>> to
>=20
>> rule out the details of the bridge module, which is OK IMO from the=20
>> framework and requirements draft and if I understand correctly was=20
>> stated by originally proposed text, however it also rules out from=20
>> solutions perspective, and I see no reason for doing such in the=20
>> framework or requirements document.
>=20
> Perhaps my point wasn't coming across clearly in my previous attempts.
> Please refer to the e-mail where I just responded to Ali to see if=20
> that clears things up.
>=20
>=20
>> Regarding the germane point, at least I am not personally aware of=20
>> requirements having been qualified in this manner in past, please=20
>> advise if this is not the case. Whether a solution is standards track

>> or informational track should not influence the requirements, so far=20
>> as we do not have disagreements on the requirements. This is infact a

>> good reason why solutions should follow requirements instead of other

>> way round. Engineering requirements from solutions will be=20
>> counterproductive, in my view.
>=20
> IMO, the point of requirements is to, as much as possible, constrain=20
> and guide the "scope" of proposed solutions, so that solutions:
> a)  provide benefit to the end-users who will use them;
> b)  avoid arguments down the road interpreting what requirements=20
> really meant; and, most importantly,
> c)  assuming there are multiple, competing solutions, then the=20
> requirements document should be the main reference to evaluate how=20
> completely each solution satisfies the requirements.
>=20
> IOW, the more clear the requirements, the more benefit I believe it=20
> provides everyone down the road.
>=20
> -shane
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> Hopefully, we can get to the last call and start addressing the=20
>> solutions, which is likely what you are concerned about and likely=20
>> the
>=20
>> group is also interested in addressing, including us.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ---
>> Dinesh
>>
>> <snipped>
>>>>> "The details regarding bridge OAM operation for MTU-s and
>>>> PE-rs (e.g.,
>>>>> OAM protocols for Ethernet) are outside of the scope of
>>>> this document
>>>>> as they are covered in IEEE standards unless there is an
>>>> Interaction
>>>>> between these protocols and MPLS/IP protocols."
>>>> May I suggest the above be rephrased as follows, and be put as a=20
>>>> new
>>>> paragraph:
>>>> ---snip---
>>>> The details regarding the "bridge module", as defined in the=20
>>>> framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664], of the PE-rs as well as the native=20
>>>> Ethernet MTU-s are outside of the scope of this document and the=20
>>>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered

>>>> in IEEE standards.  The requirements in this draft apply to the=20
>>>> "VPLS Forwarder" and the "Emulated LAN interface", which connects=20
>>>> the VPLS
>=20
>>>> Forwarder to the bridge module.
>>>> ---snip---
>>>>
>>> That is NOT correct !! If you refer to both RFC 4465 and RFC 4464,=20
>>> an
>=20
>>> end-to-end VPLS is defined to include bridge module, forwarder, and=20
>>> the set of PWs. I know better, I helped the authors with these=20
>>> definitions at the time of the writing of these RFCs. For example
>>> RFC4465 says: "
>>> End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a LAN emulation=20
>>> module ([RFC4664])." Therefore, when we define OAM for the=20
>>> end-to-end VPLS service it must include bridge module.
>> I don't understand.  Your explanation above is confusing for two
>> reasons:
>> 1)  First, if you look above at the top-most comment in this thread=20
>> (relative to the Framework section) you agree that the "details=20
>> regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs ... are outside the=20
>> scope of this document as they are covered in the IEEE standards".
>> Now, you seem to be saying the opposite in the Requirements section.
>> Specifically, that the above statement was irrelevant and now you are

>> implying that you do want/need to duplicate IEEE standards in the=20
>> requirements for OAM solutions that will be proposed for VPLS/VPWS.
>> Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rationale behind your=20
>> explanation
>=20
>> or intent?
>> 2)  Second, and much more germane to the requirements section, is=20
>> what
>> portion(s) of the requirements section apply to OAM solutions that=20
>> will go Standards Track and, separately, what requirement(s) apply to

>> OAM solutions that may go Informational, (assuming they are not=20
>> duplicating or interfering with standards/protocols from other
SDO's)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -shane
>>
>=20






From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 05 02:02:31 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HO7Bl-0005Xz-Dj; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:00:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HO7Bk-0005Xr-El
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:00:52 -0500
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HO7Bi-0004yq-5s
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:00:52 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502FB646FA
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon,  5 Mar 2007 00:00:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <45EBC01B.80207@castlepoint.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:00:43 -0700
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
References: <551A17FF-64D4-48D6-8207-B2A4A4DC1509@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <551A17FF-64D4-48D6-8207-B2A4A4DC1509@castlepoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-01
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane Amante wrote:
> This is the start of the WG Last Call for:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-01
> 
> Please e-mail the list with any comments, concerns or corrections.  Last 
> Call on this draft will end in two weeks, on Friday, March 2, 2007, at 
> 17:00 MST (UTC -7).

This ends the WG Last Call for this draft.  Since no one raised any 
concerns or objections, we will forward it on to the IESG.

-shane & Vach


> Thanks,
> 
> -shane & Vach
> 





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 05 02:03:19 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HO7E2-0008AA-5O; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:03:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HO7E1-00087f-3E
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:03:13 -0500
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HO7E0-0006Ay-JH
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:03:13 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25956646EE;
	Mon,  5 Mar 2007 00:03:06 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <45EBC0AE.5020901@castlepoint.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:03:10 -0700
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dinesh Mohan <mohand@nortel.com>
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02CF69DC@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
	<78DA378D-8CF1-4A46-A128-B8C0B9553C96@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0BF673C9@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<5189EEF7-7A64-4BE2-827B-5FCA938B3258@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C021787@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
	<45E73F19.5050806@castlepoint.net>
	<183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C08561C@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <183DD1B052A11A40B76125E42F1CBAAB0C08561C@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f2728948111f2edaaf8980b5b9de55af
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 [FrameworkReview]
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Dinesh,

Dinesh Mohan wrote:
> Shane,
> 
> I will add the following text at the start of Section 6 and 7:
> 
> "It is noted that OAM solutions that meet the following requirements may
> make use of existing OAM mechanisms e.g. Ethernet OAM, VCCV, etc.
> however must not break these existing OAM mechanisms. If extensions are
> required to existing OAM mechanisms, these should be coordinated with
> relevant groups responsible for these OAM mechanisms."
 >
> In light of recent discussion and your agreement with the above
> direction, I will remove the following text proposed earlier by Ali to
> resolve your related comment:
> 
> Section 4.1.1:
> The details regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs (e.g.,
> Ethernet encapsulation format, customer's Ethernet control protocol
> handling, etc.) are outside of the scope of this document as they are
> covered in IEEE standards unless there is an Interaction between these
> protocols and VPLS or VPWS protocols.
> 
> Section 6:
> The details regarding "bridge module" operation and its associated
> protocols are outside of the scope of this document as they are covered
> in IEEE standards unless there is an Interaction between these protocols
> and VPLS/VPWS protocols.
> 
> Note: To meet the submission deadline, I will incorporate the changes
> and submit the draft. Hopefully, this resolves all outstanding issues.

Thank you.  This satisfies my concern.

-shane




> 
> ---
> Dinesh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05
> [FrameworkReview]
> 
> Dinesh,
> 
> Dinesh Mohan wrote:
>> Shane,
>>
>> I agree with the intent here to have clear requirements, however, as 
>> noted in the other email response, not sure about the non-requirements
> 
>> which are implicit in the group activities and policies. I am hoping 
>> that at the requirements level, we are not presupposing any solutions,
> 
>> though we may certainly have a view of the solution.
>>
>> IMO, we could go ahead with the text proposed by Ali, and if you 
>> insist, add a statement to the effect that Ethernet OAM extensions, if
> 
>> any, required by the solutions should be pursued in relevant SDOs, and
> 
>> proceed with the last call such that we can move the focus on solution
> 
>> drafts. Let us know your thoughts.
> 
> Rather than rush this OAM draft through at the last minute based on
> assumptions, let's make sure that everyone is clear *now* that it
> doesn't conflict with past precedent and even requirements, etc. that
> got us here.  I think we're finally in general agreement on how to solve
> this concern so I'm not sure the value of belaboring this point.
> I think you should scrap the text Ali proposed and say something more
> along the lines of Section 5.1 in RFC 4665, or at least refer to it, in
> Section 6 & 7 of the OAM draft as that will be much more clear.  I
> apologize if the original text I suggested was not clear as to my
> concerns and a proposed direction on how to resolve it.
> 
> If you agree with my suggestion, please propose text to the list on how
> you think it's best to address it.  After we've had a chance to look at
> that proposed text, fold it in to the OAM draft, publish it and we
> should then be ready for a WG LC.
> 
> Also, let's roll this discussion back in to the other e-mail, so we have
> only a single place to discuss it.
> 
> -shane
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:33 AM
>> To: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:QW30)
>> Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); l2vpn@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-05 
>> [FrameworkReview]
>>
>> Dinesh,
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Dinesh Mohan wrote:
>>> Shane,
>>>
>>> Regarding your last comment: even the text proposed by you can be 
>>> cited to be confusing since on one hand it implies that "bridge 
>>> module" is defined in the L2VPN framework - "..."bridge module", as 
>>> defined in the framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664].." - and then the text 
>>> suggests that these are outside the scope since there are covered in 
>>> IEEE standards - "...are outside of the scope of this document and 
>>> the
>>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered 
>>> in
>>> IEEE standards...."
>>>
>>> At this stage we seem to be simply wordsmithing. This document has 
>>> been under review for last 2+ years and received extensive commments 
>>> from you and has been updated numerous times, version -07 being a 
>>> proof of that.
>>>
>>> The biggest concern regarding your proposed text is that it implies 
>>> to
>>> rule out the details of the bridge module, which is OK IMO from the 
>>> framework and requirements draft and if I understand correctly was 
>>> stated by originally proposed text, however it also rules out from 
>>> solutions perspective, and I see no reason for doing such in the 
>>> framework or requirements document.
>> Perhaps my point wasn't coming across clearly in my previous attempts.
>> Please refer to the e-mail where I just responded to Ali to see if 
>> that clears things up.
>>
>>
>>> Regarding the germane point, at least I am not personally aware of 
>>> requirements having been qualified in this manner in past, please 
>>> advise if this is not the case. Whether a solution is standards track
> 
>>> or informational track should not influence the requirements, so far 
>>> as we do not have disagreements on the requirements. This is infact a
> 
>>> good reason why solutions should follow requirements instead of other
> 
>>> way round. Engineering requirements from solutions will be 
>>> counterproductive, in my view.
>> IMO, the point of requirements is to, as much as possible, constrain 
>> and guide the "scope" of proposed solutions, so that solutions:
>> a)  provide benefit to the end-users who will use them;
>> b)  avoid arguments down the road interpreting what requirements 
>> really meant; and, most importantly,
>> c)  assuming there are multiple, competing solutions, then the 
>> requirements document should be the main reference to evaluate how 
>> completely each solution satisfies the requirements.
>>
>> IOW, the more clear the requirements, the more benefit I believe it 
>> provides everyone down the road.
>>
>> -shane
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hopefully, we can get to the last call and start addressing the 
>>> solutions, which is likely what you are concerned about and likely 
>>> the
>>> group is also interested in addressing, including us.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> ---
>>> Dinesh
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>>>> "The details regarding bridge OAM operation for MTU-s and
>>>>> PE-rs (e.g.,
>>>>>> OAM protocols for Ethernet) are outside of the scope of
>>>>> this document
>>>>>> as they are covered in IEEE standards unless there is an
>>>>> Interaction
>>>>>> between these protocols and MPLS/IP protocols."
>>>>> May I suggest the above be rephrased as follows, and be put as a 
>>>>> new
>>>>> paragraph:
>>>>> ---snip---
>>>>> The details regarding the "bridge module", as defined in the 
>>>>> framework of L2PVN [RFC 4664], of the PE-rs as well as the native 
>>>>> Ethernet MTU-s are outside of the scope of this document and the 
>>>>> solutions defined as a result of this document, as they are covered
> 
>>>>> in IEEE standards.  The requirements in this draft apply to the 
>>>>> "VPLS Forwarder" and the "Emulated LAN interface", which connects 
>>>>> the VPLS
>>>>> Forwarder to the bridge module.
>>>>> ---snip---
>>>>>
>>>> That is NOT correct !! If you refer to both RFC 4465 and RFC 4464, 
>>>> an
>>>> end-to-end VPLS is defined to include bridge module, forwarder, and 
>>>> the set of PWs. I know better, I helped the authors with these 
>>>> definitions at the time of the writing of these RFCs. For example
>>>> RFC4465 says: "
>>>> End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a LAN emulation 
>>>> module ([RFC4664])." Therefore, when we define OAM for the 
>>>> end-to-end VPLS service it must include bridge module.
>>> I don't understand.  Your explanation above is confusing for two
>>> reasons:
>>> 1)  First, if you look above at the top-most comment in this thread 
>>> (relative to the Framework section) you agree that the "details 
>>> regarding bridge operation for MTU-s and PE-rs ... are outside the 
>>> scope of this document as they are covered in the IEEE standards".
>>> Now, you seem to be saying the opposite in the Requirements section.
>>> Specifically, that the above statement was irrelevant and now you are
> 
>>> implying that you do want/need to duplicate IEEE standards in the 
>>> requirements for OAM solutions that will be proposed for VPLS/VPWS.
>>> Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rationale behind your 
>>> explanation
>>> or intent?
>>> 2)  Second, and much more germane to the requirements section, is 
>>> what
>>> portion(s) of the requirements section apply to OAM solutions that 
>>> will go Standards Track and, separately, what requirement(s) apply to
> 
>>> OAM solutions that may go Informational, (assuming they are not 
>>> duplicating or interfering with standards/protocols from other
> SDO's)?
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -shane
>>>
> 
> 





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 06 15:51:18 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgcH-0004Fv-Kg; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:37 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgbl-0002ho-0M; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:05 -0500
Received: from ns1.neustar.com ([2001:503:c779:1a::9c9a:108a])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgbk-0002pC-02; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:04 -0500
Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com
	[10.31.47.10]) by ns1.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6635226EBD;
	Tue,  6 Mar 2007 20:50:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgbj-000668-4n; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E1HOgbj-000668-4n@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services
	Author(s)	: Y. Kamite, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt
	Pages		: 29
	Date		: 2007-3-6
	
This document provides functional requirements for network solutions
   that support multicast over Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS).  It
   specifies requirements both from the end user and service provider
   standpoints.  It is intended that potential solutions will use these
   requirements as guidelines.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-6132028.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-6132028.I-D@ietf.org>


--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 06 15:55:43 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgh5-0003oo-Tl; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:55:35 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgci-0005Yc-Qw; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:51:04 -0500
Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgch-0000Y4-6h; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:51:04 -0500
Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com
	[10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077C61781E;
	Tue,  6 Mar 2007 20:50:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOgbj-00067B-Om; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E1HOgbj-00067B-Om@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:50:03 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: L2VPN OAM Requirements and Framework
	Author(s)	: D. Mohan, A. Sajassi
	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt
	Pages		: 35
	Date		: 2007-3-6
	
This draft provides framework and requirements for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPN) Operation, Administration and Maintenance
(OAM). The OAM framework is intended to provide OAM layering across
L2VPN services, Pseudo Wires (PWs) and Packet Switched Network (PSN)
tunnels. The requirements are intended to identify OAM requirement
for L2VPN services (i.e. VPLS, VPWS, and IPLS). Furthermore, if
L2VPN services OAM requirements impose specific requirements on PW
OAM and/or PSN OAM, those specific PW and/or PSN OAM requirements
are also identified.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-6141450.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-6141450.I-D@ietf.org>


--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 07 10:51:45 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOyPL-0002tl-MC; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:27 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOyP0-0002nu-0q; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:07 -0500
Received: from ns1.neustar.com ([2001:503:c779:1a::9c9a:108a])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOyOx-0003kt-LQ; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:05 -0500
Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com
	[10.31.47.10]) by ns1.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C60226EF0;
	Wed,  7 Mar 2007 15:50:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HOyOw-0006Uh-QS; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:02 -0500
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E1HOyOw-0006Uh-QS@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:02 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: PIM Snooping over VPLS
	Author(s)	: V. Hemige, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt
	Pages		: 37
	Date		: 2007-3-7
	
In Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), as also in IEEE Bridged 
  Networks, the switches simply flood multicast traffic on all ports in 
  the LAN by default. IGMP Snooping is commonly deployed to ensure 
  multicast traffic is not forwarded on ports without IGMP receivers. 
  The procedures and recommendations for IGMP Snooping are defined in 
  [IGMP-SNOOP]. But when any protocol other than IGMP is used, the 
  common practice is to simply flood multicast traffic to all ports. 
  PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, PIM-BIDIR are widely deployed routing protocols. PIM 
  Snooping procedures are important to restrict multicast traffic to 
  only the routers interested in receiving such traffic. 
  While most of the PIM Snooping procedures defined here also apply to 
  IEEE Bridged Networks, VPLS demands certain special procedures due to 
  the split-horizon rules that require the Provider Edge (PE) devices 
  to co-operate. This document describes the procedures and 
  recommendations for PIM-Snooping in VPLS to facilitate replication to 
  only those ports behind which there are interested PIM routers and/or 
  IGMP hosts. 
   
  This document also describes procedures for PIM Proxy. PIM Proxy is 
  required on PEs for VPLS Multicast to work correctly when Join 
  suppression is enabled in the VPLS. PIM Proxy also helps scale VPLS 
  Multicast much better than just PIM Snooping.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-7094703.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-7094703.I-D@ietf.org>


--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 09 15:51:53 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HPm2y-0003uw-0s; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:50:40 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HPm2q-0003Zh-S6; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:50:32 -0500
Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HPm2q-0008CF-GH; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:50:32 -0500
Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com
	[10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3AE176DE;
	Fri,  9 Mar 2007 20:50:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HPm2M-0003L4-6V; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:50:02 -0500
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Message-Id: <E1HPm2M-0003L4-6V@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:50:02 -0500
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Multicast in VPLS
	Author(s)	: R. Aggarwal, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt
	Pages		: 30
	Date		: 2007-3-9
	
This document describes a solution for overcoming a subset of the
   limitations of existing VPLS multicast solutions. It describes
   procedures for VPLS multicast that utilize multicast trees in the
   sevice provider (SP) network.  One such multicast tree can be shared
   between multiple VPLS instances.  Procedures by which a single
   multicast tree in the backbone can be used to carry traffic belonging 
   only to a specified set of one or more IP multicast streams from one
   or more VPLSs are also described.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-9103719.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-3-9103719.I-D@ietf.org>


--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 13 00:37:53 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HQyjv-0006Xz-CK; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:35:59 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQyju-0006Xu-LF
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:35:58 -0400
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQyjf-000798-Gk
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:35:58 -0400
Received: from [172.16.15.25] (dsl081-098-224.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.98.224]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACC5644EE
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:35:33 -0700 (MST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <84D3A5A4-B118-4D97-891C-581270CE020B@castlepoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:35:37 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is the start of a WG Last Call for:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08

Please e-mail the list with any comments, concerns or corrections.   
Last Call on this draft will end in three weeks, on Friday, March 30,  
2007, at 17:00 MST (UTC -6).

Thanks,

-shane & Vach




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Mar 13 00:55:12 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HQz20-0008Sy-04; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:54:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQz1z-0008St-3Z
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:54:39 -0400
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQz1x-0005qM-SR
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:54:39 -0400
Received: from [172.16.15.25] (dsl081-098-224.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.98.224]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67638644EE
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:54:32 -0700 (MST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C4A26D50-FE8E-47CF-A2E5-962EB93066CA@castlepoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:54:36 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009
Subject: IETF 68: L2VPN WG Agenda
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

The following is the agenda for the L2VPN WG meeting in Prague, Czech  
Republic:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/l2vpn.txt

Just a reminder that we are meeting on Wednesday, March 21, 2007,  
1510-1610.

-shane & Vach




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 16 09:09:54 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HSC9P-0002u9-NS; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:07:19 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSC9O-0002u0-Si
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:07:19 -0400
Received: from mgw2.noc.ntt.com ([210.160.15.6])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSC9K-0002Q1-3m
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:07:18 -0400
Received: from mop2.noc.ntt.com
	by mgw2.noc.ntt.com (NTT-Com MailSV) with ESMTP id l2GD750w001463;
	Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:07:05 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mip1.noc.ntt.com (mvi1.noc.ntt.com)
	by mop2.noc.ntt.com (NTT-Com MailSV) with ESMTP id
	<0JEZ00BP3Z3TU3@ntt.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:07:05 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:07:04 +0900
From: "Yuji KAMITE" <y.kamite@ntt.com>
In-reply-to: <E1HOgbj-000668-4n@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
To: "'Shane Amante'" <shane@castlepoint.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Message-id: <0JEZ00ABTZ3SID@ntt.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcdgMd9WbFKDB+yIRoiZ4JNyTTBQlAFPdjlw
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc: 
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, 

We have updated to reflect the feedback since the WG Last Call.
 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg01398.html
The Changes in detail are shown below.

Shane, could you see if the documet can go to the IESG? 

Best regards,
-Yuji

-------------------
Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2.
 --> added the phrases that allows source MAC address change as an optional scheme,,
    if L2 frame is regenerated by PE if PIM/IGMP is consumed (as a proxy)

Section 5.9.
 --> When using more than one multicast tunnel (e.g., P2MP-TE), 
      out-of-order delivery tends to occure.  This point is reflected in the requirement.

Section 6.5.1
 --> As for activation granularity,
     the requirement level for IP multicast group/channgel basis
     was changed from MAY to SHOULD.

Author's address
  --> Updated.
-------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:50 AM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private 
> Networks Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: Requirements for Multicast Support in 
> Virtual Private LAN Services
> 	Author(s)	: Y. Kamite, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt
> 	Pages		: 29
> 	Date		: 2007-3-6
> 	
> This document provides functional requirements for network solutions
>    that support multicast over Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS).  It
>    specifies requirements both from the end user and service provider
>    standpoints.  It is intended that potential solutions will 
> use these
>    requirements as guidelines.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcas
> t-reqts-04.txt
> 
> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a 
> message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word 
> unsubscribe in the body of the message. 
> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
> to change your subscription settings.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login 
> with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail 
> address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
> "get draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt".
> 
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in 
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
> 
> Send a message to:
> 	mailserv@ietf.org.
> In the body type:
> 	"FILE 
> /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-04.txt".
> 	
> NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> 	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
> 	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> 	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> 	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant 
> mail readers
> 	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> 	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> 	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> 	how to manipulate these messages.
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail 
> reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII 
> version of the Internet-Draft.
> 





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 19 11:41:33 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTJxU-0004AQ-71; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:39:40 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTJxT-0004A1-3F
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:39:39 -0400
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTJxN-0004W8-PQ
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:39:38 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ED764365
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:39:19 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <45FEAEA5.3060402@castlepoint.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:39:17 +0100
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed
Subject: UPDATE: IETF 68: L2VPN WG Agenda
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

We've added one more topic to the agenda for the L2VPN WG meeting this 
Wednesday afternoon:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/l2vpn.txt

For those who are presenting, please e-mail me your slides ASAP!

-shane & Vach




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 11:20:04 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU2aV-0005Cv-Kx; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:18:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU2aV-0005Ca-1j
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:18:55 -0400
Received: from mx2-n.rad.co.il ([62.0.23.221] helo=antivir2.rad.co.il)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU2aP-0003lh-TE
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:18:55 -0400
Received: from exrad3.rad.co.il (HELO exrad3.ad.rad.co.il) ([192.114.24.112])
	by antivir2.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 17:18:42 +0200
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
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +0200
Message-ID: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <20061218221317.J37729@kummer.juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Raising of hands ...
Thread-Index: AccjNq0rbFvredtQTfSXWFb01bI7vBIlUk5Q
From: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s@rad.com>
To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

=20
I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

Y(J)S




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 11:59:34 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3CB-00076J-U6; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:57:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3CB-000769-6a
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:57:51 -0400
Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=smtp.testbed.se)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3C9-0004fS-OK
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:57:51 -0400
Received: from dhcp-10d8.ietf68.org ([130.129.16.216])
	by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3C3-0002ah-BJ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:57:44 +0100
Message-ID: <460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:57:41 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Yakov,

not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".

/Loa

Yaakov Stein wrote:
>  
> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
> 
> Y(J)S
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:02:58 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3Gl-00037r-KW; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:02:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3Gj-00037l-Vl
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:02:33 -0400
Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=smtp.testbed.se)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3Gh-0006Qd-Lb
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:02:33 -0400
Received: from dhcp-10d8.ietf68.org ([130.129.16.216])
	by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3Ge-0002cN-6Z; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:02:29 +0100
Message-ID: <46015711.1000703@pi.se>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:02:25 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
	<460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
In-Reply-To: <460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org



Loa Andersson wrote:
> Yakov,
> 
> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
> as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
> 
> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".

sorry about that

/Loa

> 
> /Loa
> 
> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>  
>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
>> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
>>
>> Y(J)S
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:29:56 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3fx-0005Nx-4T; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:28:37 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3fw-0005Ns-Ad
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:28:36 -0400
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3ft-0005G1-Tr
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:28:36 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE926645B2
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:27:21 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:27:10 +0100
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the 
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about 
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended 
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. 
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at 
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for 
the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my 
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people 
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:37:30 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3nv-0001SO-Br; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:36:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3nt-0001SE-N0
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:36:49 -0400
Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3nq-0007bQ-9M
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:36:49 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AFF6459C
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:34:24 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <46015E89.4000602@castlepoint.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:34:17 +0100
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Subject: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-03
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Folks,

Today, when reviewing the in-flight WG drafts I mentioned that the above 
draft was ready for WG Last Call.  In reality, we conducted a WG Last 
Call of this draft earlier this year, in January.  Yuji received some 
comments during the Last Call, which he has addressed in the final 
version which was recently published, and it will now be sent off to the 
IESG.

-shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:44:40 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3uw-0003bm-Nn; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:44:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3uv-0003ZS-AN
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:44:05 -0400
Received: from mx100.qos.net.il ([80.74.96.22])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3us-0001zB-V0
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:44:05 -0400
Received: from webmail.axerra.com (HELO mail.axerra.com) ([80.74.100.75])
	by out2.qos.net.il with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 18:44:21 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CACT+AEZQSmRL/2dsb2JhbAA
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
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:43:51 +0200
Message-ID: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC80064@tlv2.iprad.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr16WtDAw3zB3ZTYuM1mrBXEjANwAAGJuQ
From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

 YES
                Sasha Vainshtein

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:27 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:46:24 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU3wy-0004Qf-55; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:46:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3wx-0004QX-Ca
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:46:11 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU3wq-0002u4-JV
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:46:11 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	21 Mar 2007 09:46:04 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,309,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="694115482:sNHT29833292"
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2LGk4J87359;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200703211646.l2LGk4J87359@merlot.juniper.net>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:27:10 BST."
	<46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <87248.1174495564.1@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:46:04 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the 
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about 
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended 
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. 
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at 
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for 
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my 
> apologies for the confusion.
> 
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people 
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Yes.

Yakov.




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:50:09 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU40f-0007Qy-OJ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:50:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU40e-0007Ng-Q0
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:50:00 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU40Y-0004cq-Je
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:50:00 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO beta.jnpr.net) ([172.24.18.109])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 09:49:54 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,309,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="694118006:sNHT32778188"
Received: from sapphire.juniper.net ([172.17.28.108]) by beta.jnpr.net over
	TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:49:53 -0700
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Message-ID: <20070321094938.D52580@sapphire.juniper.net>
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 16:49:53.0746 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F3022320:01C76BD8]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org


Hi Shane,

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Shane Amante wrote:

> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
> apologies for the confusion.
>
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>

Yes.

rahul




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 12:57:16 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU46T-0007FJ-Iw; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:56:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU46S-000702-5N
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:56:00 -0400
Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU46P-0006X3-TO
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:56:00 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO pi-smtp.jnpr.net) ([10.10.2.36])
	by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 09:55:57 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,309,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="673834702:sNHT31257088"
Received: from EmailHK1.jnpr.net ([172.27.128.41]) by pi-smtp.jnpr.net with
	Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:55:56 -0400
Received: from EMAILHK2.jnpr.net ([172.27.128.43]) by EmailHK1.jnpr.net with
	Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:55:52 +0800
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
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:55:51 +0800
Message-ID: <1983C970955C8D459A37C317E4FD5B6E025A1851@EMAILHK2.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1kqd6j2oca3CT9CcYpwqrO8eRwAA3GBw
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
From: "Ananth Nagarajan" <ananth@juniper.net>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,
	<l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 16:55:52.0153 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[C8A2B490:01C76BD9]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org


>=20
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just=20
> after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll=20
> in the room about making this draft a WG document, in=20
> particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.:=20
> Informational or Standards Track.=20
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over=20
> our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could=20
> convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I=20
> didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my apologies for the confusion.
>=20
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How=20
> many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a=20
> WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>=20

Yes

Ananth




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 13:13:57 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU4NY-0000Lw-2I; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:13:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU4NW-0000Lq-V8
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:13:38 -0400
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.242])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU4NV-0002bP-Ou
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:13:38 -0400
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d30so387661and
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=HcUwtBbl9VzxLeNKUeajOg4Dgw/+Y5lOV3sZevQnmGRYGWlieyuIuR4fk01imfSGHLVqhjp7NSKdcZF1pCslRJw9aNdce4z62mxwcTQYtDjoCQyVLaBOmtX92MAzuHIkKIXAcW+r04IjIu/NOSn2ojSQyPvG9hoQFEFrQSXhNYU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=gsWIhWIIY6zmGUxIzZEJa5iNP+CGYe68Xf2BZssjUU37tTRU1kNZbV1beEGGlKz1659mef+Tw33h9kVbIdtG4R0L2X25ZbhevM/4O1lPO5ackLyIXzXoE65ZscjDW5u+9CuADcB1fVzl+iTvIsd6qxMW8ITvTXV2dm/TkQ2Zc+Y=
Received: by 10.100.91.6 with SMTP id o6mr744946anb.1174497217479;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.151.19 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <38f596590703211013g10a59eepdaacf75e61421aa5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:13:37 +0000
From: "Guy Davies" <aguydavies@gmail.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1983C970955C8D459A37C317E4FD5B6E025A1851@EMAILHK2.jnpr.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
	<1983C970955C8D459A37C317E4FD5B6E025A1851@EMAILHK2.jnpr.net>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Yes

Guy

On 21/03/07, Ananth Nagarajan <ananth@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
> > after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll
> > in the room about making this draft a WG document, in
> > particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.:
> > Informational or Standards Track.
> > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> > our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could
> > convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I
> > didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my apologies for the confusion.
> >
> > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a
> > WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> >
>
> Yes
>
> Ananth
>
>




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 13:37:58 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU4jj-00046n-9v; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU4ji-00046e-EH
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:34 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU4jf-0007B8-6T
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:34 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158])
	by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 13:36:31 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12])
	by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2LHaUe6000868; 
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:30 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com
	[64.102.31.12])
	by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2LHaQGl023064; 
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:36:30 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
	xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:24 -0400
Received: from dhcp-146e.ietf68.org ([10.82.217.55]) by
	xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:23 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dhcp-146e.ietf68.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFFD3388E3;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s@rad.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +0200."
	<457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il> 
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.3; nmh 1.2; GNU Emacs 21.2.1
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:36:22 -0400
Message-Id: <20070321173622.0BFFD3388E3@dhcp-146e.ietf68.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 17:36:23.0933 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[7216E2D0:01C76BDF]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=501; t=1174498591;
	x=1175362591; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20George=20Swallow=20<swallow@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20Raising=20of=20hands=20...=20 |Sender:=20
	|To:=20=22Yaakov=20Stein=22=20<yaakov_s@rad.com>;
	bh=udPcToi5YX95gEjHToQXbW7UhQALijZSmi6GfY6NT5I=;
	b=Bg456YlBA/7MuGws3EysUBkyKhT3360Fx7rK19zva/8U34BQHuKOAvnJuv8nksbc/TVI1v7d
	17sKjrhJrTiIaUZFrydKwYRzSEcZkrhykjMHQwG293WZkvOVW1irCxWo;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

I too believe the appropriate designation should be Informational.

...george

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 14:15:57 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU5Kl-0005tO-26; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:14:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU5Kj-0005ls-Dt
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:14:49 -0400
Received: from hicks.ciena.com ([63.118.34.22])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU5Kh-0004Bi-Hy
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:14:49 -0400
Received: from mdmail4.ciena.com (HELO mdmxm01.ciena.com) ([63.118.39.26])
	by hicks.ciena.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2007 14:14:47 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:14:40 -0400
Message-ID: <3C13767EA2F93441AFB13A630204F1B29FB549@mamxm02.ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1nNM6a47tlzVSRihmKcrwzg70AADjz5w
From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,
	<l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2007 18:14:41.0816 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[CBBC0180:01C76BE4]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

...in favor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM
> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
>=20
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over=20
> our time at=20
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the=20
> room over for=20
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify=20
> it.  So, my=20
> apologies for the confusion.
>=20
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How=20
> many people=20
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -shane
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 18:56:56 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU9hH-0006Mo-KJ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:54:23 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9hG-0006Kq-7f
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:54:22 -0400
Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9hD-0003SD-TE
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:54:22 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	21 Mar 2007 15:54:19 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,310,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="674013092:sNHT37589552"
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2LMsIJ88025;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l2LMsIjK099696;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:54:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost)
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id
	l2LMsAES099693; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Message-ID: <20070321154732.N99367@kummer.juniper.net>
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Shane Amante wrote:

> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN 
> WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this 
> draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG 
> draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were 
> abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in 
> order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I 
> didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my apologies for the confusion.

My fault as well, for not being clear (it being obvious to me).  This 
draft is intended as Proposed Standard.

Here's the situation: this draft specifies small but NORMATIVE 
extensions to RFC 4761 (which is PS); it has several (>= 2) 
independent implementations, and it is reasonably widely deployed.

Wouldn't an impartial view recommend Proposed Standard?

Kireeti.
-------




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 19:02:20 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU9oa-0004Xb-W4; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:01:56 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9oZ-0004XB-Tg
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:01:55 -0400
Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9oY-00061v-JN
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:01:55 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	21 Mar 2007 16:01:54 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,310,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="674015774:sNHT33795234"
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2LN1rJ90087;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l2LN1rjK099750;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:01:53 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost)
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id
	l2LN1oSR099747; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
In-Reply-To: <46015711.1000703@pi.se>
Message-ID: <20070321160037.C99367@kummer.juniper.net>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
	<460155F5.7060206@pi.se> <46015711.1000703@pi.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Loa Andersson wrote:

>
>
> Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Yakov,
>>
>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

It occurs to me that capitalizing the entire document would solve this 
problem.  Hmm, perhaps you're right about "lazy" :-)

>> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
> So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".
>
> sorry about that
>
> /Loa
>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
>>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
>>> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
>>>
>>> Y(J)S
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
>
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>                                           loa@pi.se
>

Kireeti.
-------




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 21 19:07:49 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HU9ts-0000Q2-4L; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:07:24 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9tr-0000Px-1z
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:07:23 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HU9tp-0007v5-Ot
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:07:22 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	21 Mar 2007 16:07:22 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,310,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="694316403:sNHT33015418"
Received: from garnet.juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2LN7KJ91310;
	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:07:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ina@juniper.net)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ina Minei <ina@juniper.net>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Message-ID: <20070321160619.O43957@garnet.juniper.net>
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in 
> favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended 
> Status' is Standards Track?
>

 	In favor.

 		Ina




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 08:29:44 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUMNw-0007ZV-NC; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:27:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMNu-0007VX-Nf
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:27:14 -0400
Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=smtp.testbed.se)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMNt-00019Y-87
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:27:14 -0400
Received: from dhcp-10d8.ietf68.org ([130.129.16.216])
	by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUMNm-0000QU-G4; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:27:10 +0100
Message-ID: <46027614.3020009@pi.se>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:27:00 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>	<460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
	<46015711.1000703@pi.se> <20070321160037.C99367@kummer.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070321160037.C99367@kummer.juniper.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Kireeti,

I was joking about "being lazy", and it turns out that I was
sloppy in not going through the document to the end.

I turns out that you are capitalizing MUSTs and SHOULDs
appropriately (most ot the time).


However when I saw the question, I checked, and it turns out
that (in my opinion) some of the "must" in the early part of
the document really should be "MUST". I didn't take the check
all the way through the document, which I should have.

We can take that off-line.

And my answer to the is "yes".

/Loa

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson wrote:
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
>>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
>>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
> 
> It occurs to me that capitalizing the entire document would solve this
> problem.  Hmm, perhaps you're right about "lazy" :-)
> 
>>> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
>> So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".
>>
>> sorry about that
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
>>>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
>>>> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
>>>>
>>>> Y(J)S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Loa Andersson
>>
>> Principal Networking Architect
>> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
>> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
>> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>>                                           loa@pi.se
>>
> 
> Kireeti.
> -------
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 09:36:19 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUNRc-00038j-W1; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:35:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUNRb-0002yK-5j
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:35:07 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUNRV-0002Tr-Ch
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:35:07 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO emailfeemea2.jnpr.net) ([172.26.192.142])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 06:35:00 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,314,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="694640731:sNHT29909644"
Received: from emailemea6.jnpr.net ([172.26.192.141]) by emailfeemea2.jnpr.net
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:34:59 +0000
Received: from JLUCEK-XP.juniper.net ([172.26.200.131]) by emailemea6.jnpr.net
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:34:58 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20070322133443.03aa8ec0@pop.juniper.net>
X-Sender: jlucek@pop.juniper.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:34:57 +0000
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,<l2vpn@ietf.org>
From: Julian Lucek <jlucek@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 13:34:58.0943 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[E2C690F0:01C76C86]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

At 16:27 21/03/2007 +0000, Shane Amante wrote:

>I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
>L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
>making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
>Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
>Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
>the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
>the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
>apologies for the confusion.
>
>Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
>are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
>'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-shane

Yes




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 10:41:27 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUOSS-0004G9-SB; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:40:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUOSR-0004Ep-MU
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:40:03 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]
	helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUOSO-0001dJ-Ci
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:40:03 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196])
	by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 07:40:00 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237])
	by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2MEdxQV030143; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:39:59 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com
	[171.70.151.144])
	by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MEdhMP021828;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:39:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:39:53 -0700
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
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:39:53 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02F3E700@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Raising of hands ...
Thread-Index: AccjNq0rbFvredtQTfSXWFb01bI7vBIlUk5QADCRFoA=
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s@rad.com>, "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 14:39:53.0379 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F40A5730:01C76C8F]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=656; t=1174574399;
	x=1175438399; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20Raising=20of=20hands=20... |Sender:=20;
	bh=8qokH0CHPJKS/gMKSXYvnIQ1m6/XvyhfFnuAS2R72A4=;
	b=IJOYscAtGaN8LaA0dhbBPe8Mc5GynZeZ0mjsihh7NIxsmWBrrU/ROPHn3mchpccFP3rvlaZS
	hryS7z8e+Vx7znKMy7U8CdmoFNsecpPqY9dcYXmeDTa7E24+rZYoH63n;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org


I wouldn't also mind to have this draft as informational. Also as
discussed during the meeting we should limit the scope of this draft to
intra-AS and remove the inter-AS stuff because of the issue we discussed
at the meeting.

-Ali
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:19 AM
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Raising of hands ...
>=20
> =20
> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making=20
> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document, but prefer it to be=20
> informational, not standards-track.
>=20
> Y(J)S
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 11:27:04 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUPBR-0005Fn-7O; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:26:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPBP-0005CQ-2Q
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:26:31 -0400
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com ([135.245.0.39])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUPAS-0001J1-Ue
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:25:43 -0400
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2])
	by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l2MFHYui003058;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:18:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.65]) by
	ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:18:25 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.29]) by
	DEEXP01.de.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:23 +0100
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
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:22 +0100
Message-ID: <969EBA797DDBFE479AA66625ADCBC3552D37EF@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1hoVJLWcmTnKT2i396FLikd8ywAvsRTw
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
From: "Lasserre, Marc \(Marc\)" <mlasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 15:18:23.0637 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[550FBC50:01C76C95]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Informational RFC would be my preference.

Cheers,
Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: mercredi 21 mars 2007 17:27
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my=20
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 12:20:38 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUQ10-0001t6-3C; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:19:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQ0y-0001eo-6E
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:19:48 -0400
Received: from black.monoski.com ([63.227.123.238] helo=napoleon.monoski.com)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQ0w-0008D9-J4
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:19:48 -0400
Received: from [130.129.19.114] (dhcp-1372.ietf68.org [130.129.19.114])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2MGIwC5002360
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:19:39 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <46029DC8.7000106@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:16:24 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>	<460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
	<46015711.1000703@pi.se>
In-Reply-To: <46015711.1000703@pi.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------090401090109010804050708"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-3.0a1 (napoleon.monoski.com [63.227.123.227]);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:19:44 -0600 (MDT)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 63.227.123.227
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090401090109010804050708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Loa Andersson wrote:
> Loa Andersson wrote:
>   
>> Yakov,
>>
>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
>>
>> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
>>     
> So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".
>
>   
Loa,
We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs yet they 
have the same characteristics as this document.
So I do not agree that just because of the language of the document or 
what it defines , this is going to be a standard recommendation of the IETF.
I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single common 
method. However it is also common practice to permit additional 
informational RFCs when needed.
I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for 
autodiscovery.

Luca


h
> sorry about that
>
> /Loa
>
>   
>> /Loa
>>
>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>     
>>>  
>>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
>>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
>>> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
>>>
>>> Y(J)S
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>   


--------------090401090109010804050708
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Loa Andersson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid46015711.1000703@pi.se" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
Loa Andersson wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Yakov,

not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".

  </pre>
</blockquote>
Loa,<br>
We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs yet
they have the same characteristics as this document.<br>
So I do not agree that just because of the language of the document or
what it defines , this is going to be a standard recommendation of the
IETF.<br>
I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single common
method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
informational RFCs when needed.<br>
I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
autodiscovery.<br>
<br>
Luca <br>
<br>
<br>
h<br>
<blockquote cite="mid46015711.1000703@pi.se" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">sorry about that

/Loa

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">/Loa

Yaakov Stein wrote:
    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap=""> 
I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

Y(J)S


      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->

  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------090401090109010804050708--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 12:23:01 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUQ3e-0006OP-J3; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:22:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQ3d-0006Nm-CN
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:22:33 -0400
Received: from black.monoski.com ([63.227.123.238] helo=napoleon.monoski.com)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQ3b-0000AV-Uo
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:22:33 -0400
Received: from [130.129.19.114] (dhcp-1372.ietf68.org [130.129.19.114])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2MGLkSu002463
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:22:26 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <46029E6F.7070002@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:19:11 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D038DF29B@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>	<460155F5.7060206@pi.se>
	<46015711.1000703@pi.se> <20070321160037.C99367@kummer.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070321160037.C99367@kummer.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-3.0a1 (napoleon.monoski.com [63.227.123.227]);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:22:27 -0600 (MDT)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 63.227.123.227
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson wrote:
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
>>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
>>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
>
> It occurs to me that capitalizing the entire document would solve this 
> problem.  Hmm, perhaps you're right about "lazy" :-)
>
Well , I'm sure that a simple perl script can automatically fix this 
problem ;-)
Do you need me to write one for you ?
Luca

>>> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
>> So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".
>>
>> sorry about that
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>> Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
>>>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
>>>> but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.
>>>>
>>>> Y(J)S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Loa Andersson
>>
>> Principal Networking Architect
>> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
>> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
>> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>>                                           loa@pi.se
>>
>
> Kireeti.
> -------





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 12:32:20 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUQCk-0001ZG-Qt; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:31:58 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQCj-0001YQ-LM
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:31:57 -0400
Received: from black.monoski.com ([63.227.123.238] helo=napoleon.monoski.com)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQCi-0001T6-6k
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:31:57 -0400
Received: from [130.129.19.114] (dhcp-1372.ietf68.org [130.129.19.114])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2MGVCUi002700
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:31:51 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4602A0A5.1000801@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:28:37 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-3.0a1 (napoleon.monoski.com [63.227.123.227]);
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:31:52 -0600 (MDT)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 63.227.123.227
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

As I said on a different thread, I believe that if anything this 
document could become an informational RFC.
I also believe that since this document has been sitting around for 
almost 3 years ... for which 2 years it was expired.
So I have to question if there is any real interest in ever publishing 
this document.

Luca


Shane Amante wrote:
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the 
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about 
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended 
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. 
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at 
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over 
> for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  
> So, my apologies for the confusion.
>
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people 
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -shane





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 13:14:49 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUQqD-0000bo-OU; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:12:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQqC-0000bi-TA
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:12:44 -0400
Received: from mx100.qos.net.il ([80.74.96.22])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUQq9-0000Pq-Rf
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:12:44 -0400
Received: from webmail.axerra.com (HELO mail.axerra.com) ([80.74.100.75])
	by out2.qos.net.il with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 19:12:52 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAI1VAkZQSmRL/2dsb2JhbAAYgm6UUw
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76CA5.441D0B4A"
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:12:23 +0200
Message-ID: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC801FE@tlv2.iprad.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Raising of hands ...
Thread-Index: AcdsnzdXMoZzIiixSs2hhEbz4cD62QABCEdQ
From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
To: "Luca Martini" <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 515708a075ffdf0a79d1c83b601e2afd
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org,
	Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CA5.441D0B4A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Luca and all,
I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
=20
In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially the same
problem.
Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to publish
both as Informational RFCs.
=20
IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have several
options:

*	Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other one as
Informational
*	Publish both as Standards Track documents if the differences in
the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has published both
RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)
*	Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached
*	Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not really
require alternative proposals:-)

BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.=20
=20
Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is not
enough IMHO.=20
You would need something close to the control plane sections of RFC
4762, only more complicated.=20
=20
Regards,
            Sasha
________________________________

From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...


Loa Andersson wrote:=20

	Loa Andersson wrote:
	 =20

		Yakov,
	=09
		not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol
and uses
		the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...)
(though Kireeti
		as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
	=09
		So, short of major rewriting this can be
"informational".
		   =20

	So, short of major rewriting this can't be "informational".
=09
	 =20

Loa,
We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs yet they
have the same characteristics as this document.
So I do not agree that just because of the language of the document or
what it defines , this is going to be a standard recommendation of the
IETF.
I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single common
method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
informational RFCs when needed.
I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
autodiscovery.

Luca=20


h


	sorry about that
=09
	/Loa
=09
	 =20

		/Loa
	=09
		Yaakov Stein wrote:
		   =20

			=20
			I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand
for making
			draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
			but prefer it to be informational, not
standards-track.
		=09
			Y(J)S
		=09
		=09
			     =20

		   =20

=09
=09
	 =20



------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CA5.441D0B4A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Luca=20
and all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>I am=20
not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>In=20
that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially the same=20
problem.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Not=20
being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to publish both =
as=20
Informational RFCs.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>IF=20
there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have several=20
options:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
  <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish one as &nbsp;a Standards Track =
document and=20
  the other one as Informational</SPAN></FONT></LI>
  <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Standards Track documents =
if=20
  the&nbsp;differences&nbsp;in the applicability justify that (this is =
how this=20
  WG has published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)</SPAN></FONT></LI>
  <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Informational if the =
differences in=20
  the applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be=20
  reached</SPAN></FONT></LI>
  <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Drop=20
  all (well, this is always an option and does not really require =
alternative=20
  proposals:-)</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>BUT I=20
have not seen any alternative proposals so =
far.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Simply=20
stating that all the PWs in a&nbsp;PVWS are set using LDP is not enough =
IMHO.=20
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>You=20
would need something close to the control plane&nbsp;sections of RFC =
4762, only=20
more complicated. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;=20
Sasha</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Luca Martini =
[mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Loa=20
Andersson<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kireeti Kompella; =
l2vpn@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:=20
Raising of hands ...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Loa Andersson wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">Loa Andersson wrote:
  </PRE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Yakov,

not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->So, short of major =
rewriting this can't be "informational".

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Loa,<BR>We have several documents from PWE3 that =
are=20
informational RFCs yet they have the same characteristics as this=20
document.<BR>So I do not agree that just because of the language of the =
document=20
or what it defines , this is going to be a standard recommendation of =
the=20
IETF.<BR>I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single =
common=20
method. However it is also common practice to permit additional =
informational=20
RFCs when needed.<BR>I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the =
use of BGP=20
for autodiscovery.<BR><BR>Luca <BR><BR><BR>h<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">sorry about that

/Loa

  </PRE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">/Loa

Yaakov Stein wrote:
    </PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">=20
I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

Y(J)S


      </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE =
wrap=3D""><!---->

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CA5.441D0B4A--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 14:04:27 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HURd6-0001wh-VC; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HURd4-0001i2-VT
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:14 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HURd2-0002n7-N1
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:14 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159])
	by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 14:03:12 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12])
	by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2MI3CAR019382; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:12 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com
	[64.102.31.12])
	by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MI32HB009921; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:03:12 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
	xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:09 -0400
Received: from [10.83.15.53] ([10.83.15.53]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4602A0A5.1000801@cisco.com>
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net> <4602A0A5.1000801@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C1417E57-E050-480A-97B3-F9CF3B7C307B@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:03:06 -0400
To: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 18:03:09.0056 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[593AF800:01C76CAC]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1311; t=1174586592;
	x=1175450592; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=tnadeau@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Thomas=20D.=20Nadeau=22=20<tnadeau@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20
	|To:=20Luca=20Martini=20<lmartini@cisco.com>;
	bh=EMb5XlMna7ht98Cq+pzJMS1xP8R2KlPIP2Ij5B35mPY=;
	b=MpuOX6K1ebHMpnRM58tFxm8pcL2KBGyM0n3iykkz49KKCnNYJwSJsSYwD9oBAoprxWsmLqlB
	0Z1tvxrxp+QOsEELyTmvUBRihvvMEz7fXInStc9Eaq/xCKXjkfdF6wY3;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=tnadeau@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org


	You rase a good point.  Would it not be more
appropriate to move this forward as an individual
informational?

	--Tom


> Shane,
>
> As I said on a different thread, I believe that if anything this  
> document could become an informational RFC.
> I also believe that since this document has been sitting around for  
> almost 3 years ... for which 2 years it was expired.
> So I have to question if there is any real interest in ever  
> publishing this document.
>
> Luca
>
>
> Shane Amante wrote:
>> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after  
>> the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room  
>> about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the  
>> 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or  
>> Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after  
>> running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they  
>> could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I  
>> didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my apologies for the confusion.
>>
>> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many  
>> people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft  
>> *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 14:33:41 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUS5W-0002aF-Qt; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:32:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUS5V-0002YX-Uj
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:32:37 -0400
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com ([135.245.0.37])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUS5S-0007sZ-Qj
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:32:37 -0400
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2])
	by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l2MIWQgQ018438;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:32:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from inexp01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.65]) by
	ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:32:24 -0500
Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by
	inexp01.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:02:20 +0530
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
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:02:32 +0530
Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD4241965508B90@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1kPgJExQcIYhTPm4TAxdMotGUAA2clxQ
From: "Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 18:32:20.0394 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[6D1BF0A0:01C76CB0]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

I would prefer this to be an *Informational* document.

Thanks,
Pranjal

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 9:57 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my=20
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 14:42:12 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUSEJ-0002iA-QI; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:41:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSEH-0002XX-MV
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:41:41 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSEF-0001Ti-BI
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:41:41 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81])
	by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 11:41:38 -0700
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137])
	by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2MIfcDS031607; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:41:38 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com
	[128.107.191.63])
	by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MIfcA8004001;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:41:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by
	xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:41:17 -0700
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
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:41:16 -0700
Message-ID: <C99477645D09FA43ADF9A3B8874E7E770343DFCC@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1nN9ejBt0WpvTcenNCHEMqx0sQA2yAvQ
From: "Vinit Bansal \(vbansal\)" <vbansal@cisco.com>
To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 18:41:17.0041 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[ACF9C610:01C76CB1]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1071; t=1174588898;
	x=1175452898; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim6002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=vbansal@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Vinit=20Bansal=20\(vbansal\)=22=20<vbansal@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20;
	bh=x4aLkYeYpXvLptP6k3Php3XWhEy5hnli+JQMSDci0mc=;
	b=rWYtdDgUT5LR/XdBQDtWO7mXDhTr5iD1A37QMyQj3re/rDWcCWoDYYPbs+p4WeMb3QsFpROY
	wEtlVZTbl171Qzl8+QqPFXO3D+DuS0j1TIpqXSWgReQe1QeTWAKPIXxL;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=vbansal@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

 I would prefer this to be an *Informational* document.

 -Vinit

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:27 AM
> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just=20
> after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll=20
> in the room about making this draft a WG document, in=20
> particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.:=20
> Informational or Standards Track.=20
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over=20
> our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could=20
> convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I=20
> didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my apologies for the confusion.
>=20
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How=20
> many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a=20
> WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -shane
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 14:48:56 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUSKk-000597-RF; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:48:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUSKj-00058u-EW
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:48:21 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]
	helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUSKh-0002Zb-LV
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:48:21 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195])
	by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 11:48:20 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254])
	by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2MImJQW010566; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:48:19 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com
	[171.70.151.144])
	by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MImIZX029965;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:48:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:48:18 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76CB2.A7EF5A00"
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:48:17 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02F3E8BF@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC801FE@tlv2.iprad.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
Thread-Index: AcdsnzdXMoZzIiixSs2hhEbz4cD62QABCEdQAANTK+A=
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>,
	"Luca Martini \(lmartini\)" <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 18:48:18.0282 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[A80E0CA0:01C76CB2]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=11689; t=1174589299;
	x=1175453299; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Standard=20solution=20for=20L2VPN=20signaling=20already=20exi
	st=20!! |Sender:=20;
	bh=8Oaz+b5+IIPCW0y9EiR8YSobmXDGArBLLtPiDxtZT9c=;
	b=P/3CdyEjk5uZ/3Ye/55FopOM2bduWqTAeRbCVmalG0TmRQu71NozSK2pVL2MV6wOID5lCuQL
	excG8/147+wD4N7aSg3nAmtdp19lqU/1mSsMhVusSgkUljpZutMvOB36;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3b8eea209b62bd15620865bc4fbef8cd
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org,
	Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CB2.A7EF5A00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a
standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS
signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt>
(sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn
draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be
just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it
suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the
standard-track solution does NOT suffer.
=20
-Ali
=20


________________________________

	From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]=20
	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM
	To: Luca Martini (lmartini)
	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
	Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
=09
=09
	Luca and all,
	I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
	=20
	In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially
the same problem.
	Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to
publish both as Informational RFCs.
	=20
	IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have
several options:

	*	Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other
one as Informational=20
	*	Publish both as Standards Track documents if the
differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has
published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)=20
	*	Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached=20
	*	Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not
really require alternative proposals:-)

	BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.=20
	=20
	Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is
not enough IMHO.=20
	You would need something close to the control plane sections of
RFC 4762, only more complicated.=20
	=20
	Regards,
	            Sasha
________________________________

	From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
	To: Loa Andersson
	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
	Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
=09
=09
	Loa Andersson wrote:=20

		Loa Andersson wrote:
		 =20

			Yakov,
		=09
			not sure here, but I think the draft specifies
protocol and uses
			the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc
...) (though Kireeti
			as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
		=09
			So, short of major rewriting this can be
"informational".
			   =20

		So, short of major rewriting this can't be
"informational".
	=09
		 =20

	Loa,
	We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs
yet they have the same characteristics as this document.
	So I do not agree that just because of the language of the
document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard
recommendation of the IETF.
	I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single
common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
informational RFCs when needed.
	I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
autodiscovery.
=09
	Luca=20
=09
=09
	h
=09

		sorry about that
	=09
		/Loa
	=09
		 =20

			/Loa
		=09
			Yaakov Stein wrote:
			   =20

				=20
				I just wanted to clarify that I raised
my hand for making
				draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG
document,
				but prefer it to be informational, not
standards-track.
			=09
				Y(J)S
			=09
			=09
				     =20

			   =20

	=09
	=09
		 =20



------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CB2.A7EF5A00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007><FONT size=3D2>I am changing the "subject" to =
reflect the=20
important fact that a standard-track solution already exist for general =
L2VPN=20
and VPWS signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08=
.txt"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-0=
8.txt</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;(sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore,&nbsp;I =
think,&nbsp;at=20
most the l2vpn draft using BGP=20
signaling&nbsp;(draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt)&nbsp;should be just =
an=20
informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it suffers =
from the=20
issue I mention during the WG meeting where the standard-track solution =
does NOT=20
suffer.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007>-Ali</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Sasha Vainshtein=20
  [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 =
10:12=20
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> Luca Martini (lmartini)<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kireeti =
Kompella;=20
  l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Raising of hands=20
  ...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Luca=20
  and all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>I am=20
  not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is =
applicable.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>In=20
  that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially the same=20
  problem.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Not=20
  being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to publish both =
as=20
  Informational RFCs.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>IF=20
  there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have several=20
  options:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <UL>
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish one as &nbsp;a Standards Track =
document and=20
    the other one as Informational</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Standards Track documents =
if=20
    the&nbsp;differences&nbsp;in the applicability justify that (this is =
how=20
    this WG has published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as =
PS)</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Informational if the =
differences in=20
    the applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be=20
    reached</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Drop all (well, this is always an option =
and does=20
    not really require alternative proposals:-)</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>BUT=20
  I have not seen any alternative proposals so =
far.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007>Simply stating that all the PWs in =
a&nbsp;PVWS are=20
  set using LDP is not enough IMHO. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>You=20
  would need something close to the control plane&nbsp;sections of RFC =
4762,=20
  only more complicated. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  =
size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;=20
  Sasha</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Luca Martini =
[mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
  <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Loa=20
  Andersson<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kireeti Kompella; =
l2vpn@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
  Re: Raising of hands ...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>Loa Andersson wrote:=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">Loa Andersson wrote:
  </PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Yakov,

not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->So, short of major =
rewriting this can't be "informational".

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Loa,<BR>We have several documents from PWE3 that =
are=20
  informational RFCs yet they have the same characteristics as this=20
  document.<BR>So I do not agree that just because of the language of =
the=20
  document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard =
recommendation of=20
  the IETF.<BR>I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a =
single=20
  common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional =

  informational RFCs when needed.<BR>I believe that we settled on an LDP =
PW ,=20
  and the use of BGP for autodiscovery.<BR><BR>Luca <BR><BR><BR>h<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">sorry about that

/Loa

  </PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">/Loa

Yaakov Stein wrote:
    </PRE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">=20
I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

Y(J)S


      </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE =
wrap=3D""><!---->

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CB2.A7EF5A00--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 16:00:38 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUTQh-0001kp-L5; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:58:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUTQf-0001Mf-Ek
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:58:33 -0400
Received: from mx100.qos.net.il ([80.74.96.22])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUTQd-00026O-A5
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:58:33 -0400
Received: from webmail.axerra.com (HELO mail.axerra.com) ([80.74.100.75])
	by out2.qos.net.il with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 21:58:42 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAC58AkZQSmRL/2dsb2JhbAAYgm6URg
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76CBC.6F2127A6"
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:58:16 +0200
Message-ID: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC80227@tlv2.iprad.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
Thread-Index: AcdsnzdXMoZzIiixSs2hhEbz4cD62QABCEdQAANTK+AAAubFYA==
From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e3901bdd61b234d82da85cc76f05a7e8
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org,
	"Luca Martini \(lmartini\)" <lmartini@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Subject: RE: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CBC.6F2127A6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ali and all,
Sorry, missed that fact completely.
=20
In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed
progressed as an Informational RFC.
=20
Regards,
              Sasha

________________________________

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM
To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini)
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!


I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a
standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS
signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt>
(sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn
draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be
just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it
suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the
standard-track solution does NOT suffer.
=20
-Ali
=20


________________________________

	From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]=20
	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM
	To: Luca Martini (lmartini)
	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
	Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
=09
=09
	Luca and all,
	I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
	=20
	In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially
the same problem.
	Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to
publish both as Informational RFCs.
	=20
	IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have
several options:

	*	Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other
one as Informational=20
	*	Publish both as Standards Track documents if the
differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has
published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)=20
	*	Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached=20
	*	Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not
really require alternative proposals:-)

	BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.=20
	=20
	Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is
not enough IMHO.=20
	You would need something close to the control plane sections of
RFC 4762, only more complicated.=20
	=20
	Regards,
	            Sasha
________________________________

	From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
	To: Loa Andersson
	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
	Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
=09
=09
	Loa Andersson wrote:=20

		Loa Andersson wrote:
		 =20

			Yakov,
		=09
			not sure here, but I think the draft specifies
protocol and uses
			the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc
...) (though Kireeti
			as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
		=09
			So, short of major rewriting this can be
"informational".
			   =20

		So, short of major rewriting this can't be
"informational".
	=09
		 =20

	Loa,
	We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs
yet they have the same characteristics as this document.
	So I do not agree that just because of the language of the
document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard
recommendation of the IETF.
	I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single
common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
informational RFCs when needed.
	I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
autodiscovery.
=09
	Luca=20
=09
=09
	h
=09

		sorry about that
	=09
		/Loa
	=09
		 =20

			/Loa
		=09
			Yaakov Stein wrote:
			   =20

				=20
				I just wanted to clarify that I raised
my hand for making
				draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG
document,
				but prefer it to be informational, not
standards-track.
			=09
				Y(J)S
			=09
			=09
				     =20

			   =20

	=09
	=09
		 =20



------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CBC.6F2127A6
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D062595619-22032007>Ali=20
and all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D062595619-22032007>Sorry,=20
missed that fact completely.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D062595619-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D062595619-22032007>In=20
this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed progressed =
as an=20
Informational RFC.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D062595619-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D062595619-22032007>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D062595619-22032007>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Sasha</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Ali Sajassi (sajassi)=20
[mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 =
8:48=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini)<BR><B>Cc:</B> =
Kireeti=20
Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson<BR><B>Subject:</B> Standard =
solution for=20
L2VPN signaling already exist !!<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007><FONT size=3D2>I am changing the "subject" to =
reflect the=20
important fact that a standard-track solution already exist for general =
L2VPN=20
and VPWS signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08=
.txt"><FONT=20
size=3D2>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-0=
8.txt</FONT></A><FONT=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;(sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore,&nbsp;I =
think,&nbsp;at=20
most the l2vpn draft using BGP=20
signaling&nbsp;(draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt)&nbsp;should be just =
an=20
informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it suffers =
from the=20
issue I mention during the WG meeting where the standard-track solution =
does NOT=20
suffer.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D385543318-22032007>-Ali</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Sasha Vainshtein=20
  [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 =
10:12=20
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> Luca Martini (lmartini)<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kireeti =
Kompella;=20
  l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Raising of hands=20
  ...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Luca=20
  and all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>I am=20
  not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is =
applicable.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>In=20
  that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially the same=20
  problem.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>Not=20
  being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to publish both =
as=20
  Informational RFCs.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>IF=20
  there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have several=20
  options:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <UL>
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish one as &nbsp;a Standards Track =
document and=20
    the other one as Informational</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Standards Track documents =
if=20
    the&nbsp;differences&nbsp;in the applicability justify that (this is =
how=20
    this WG has published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as =
PS)</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Publish both as Informational if the =
differences in=20
    the applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be=20
    reached</SPAN></FONT>=20
    <LI><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D328425816-22032007>Drop all (well, this is always an option =
and does=20
    not really require alternative proposals:-)</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>BUT=20
  I have not seen any alternative proposals so =
far.&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007>Simply stating that all the PWs in =
a&nbsp;PVWS are=20
  set using LDP is not enough IMHO. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D328425816-22032007>You=20
  would need something close to the control plane&nbsp;sections of RFC =
4762,=20
  only more complicated. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D328425816-22032007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  =
size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;=20
  Sasha</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Luca Martini =
[mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]=20
  <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Loa=20
  Andersson<BR><B>Cc:</B> Kireeti Kompella; =
l2vpn@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
  Re: Raising of hands ...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>Loa Andersson wrote:=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">Loa Andersson wrote:
  </PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Yakov,

not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol and uses
the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc ...) (though Kireeti
as usual is to lazy to capitalize.

So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational".
    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!---->So, short of major =
rewriting this can't be "informational".

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>Loa,<BR>We have several documents from PWE3 that =
are=20
  informational RFCs yet they have the same characteristics as this=20
  document.<BR>So I do not agree that just because of the language of =
the=20
  document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard =
recommendation of=20
  the IETF.<BR>I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a =
single=20
  common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional =

  informational RFCs when needed.<BR>I believe that we settled on an LDP =
PW ,=20
  and the use of BGP for autodiscovery.<BR><BR>Luca <BR><BR><BR>h<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid46015711.1000703@pi.se type=3D"cite"><PRE =
wrap=3D"">sorry about that

/Loa

  </PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">/Loa

Yaakov Stein wrote:
    </PRE>
      <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">=20
I just wanted to clarify that I raised my hand for making
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG document,
but prefer it to be informational, not standards-track.

Y(J)S


      </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">    </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE =
wrap=3D""><!---->

  </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76CBC.6F2127A6--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 19:16:27 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUWUW-00083z-Sz; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:44 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUWUV-00081c-DN
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:43 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUWUU-0004xP-39
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:43 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93])
	by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2007 16:14:43 -0700
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137])
	by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2MNEfvd017459; 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:14:41 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com
	[64.102.31.102])
	by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MNEKAI005478;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:14:37 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by
	xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:35 -0400
Received: from SwallowPB.local ([10.86.241.88]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:34 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by SwallowPB.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDD933CD53;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:28:37 MDT."
	<4602A0A5.1000801@cisco.com> 
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.3; nmh 1.2; GNU Emacs 21.2.1
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:14:35 -0400
Message-Id: <20070322231435.CDDD933CD53@SwallowPB.local>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2007 23:14:35.0094 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[DAFA1760:01C76CD7]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=429; t=1174605281;
	x=1175469281; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim8002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20George=20Swallow=20<swallow@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=20
	|Sender:=20; bh=Og+TZ7bc975qZZaDytRkLKHHdaA6PbTgr4zLMWhCVzA=;
	b=F3CJCvvugJzRafWk+HBvTkr88LfFHR6VfwUp6JdwXFxLgmZz5Q2ZTLYh/vKnJ/dH3Ynvckd/
	4IM4npXhRh1Zck+APTS5UmUT+Letw4Eyxw2Ijjj13oritMXHtUx+tFjS;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> As I said on a different thread, I believe that if anything this
> document could become an informational RFC.

An individual info RFC would be just fine.  

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 22 19:18:13 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUWXo-0001lP-TY; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:18:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUWXn-0001dW-GC
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:18:07 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUWXl-0005TR-QN
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:18:07 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	22 Mar 2007 16:18:05 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,316,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="694946499:sNHT37181804"
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2MNI5J02166;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l2MNI2jK004737;
	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:18:04 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost)
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id
	l2MNI2d0004734; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
In-Reply-To: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC80227@tlv2.iprad.local>
Message-ID: <20070322160819.H4628@kummer.juniper.net>
References: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC80227@tlv2.iprad.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d890c9ddd0b0a61e8c597ad30c1c2176
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote:

> Ali and all,
> Sorry, missed that fact completely.

Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that!  Now, don't give up 
so easily!  :-)

This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and 
signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*.  The PWE solution only addresses 
signaling of a *PW*.  An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs 
(such as all those requested by an enterprise).

I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, or be 
relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons.  However, there 
are two important points that are being missed:

a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document
    (RFC 4761)
b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and
    RFC 4762 hold equally here.

> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed
> progressed as an Informational RFC.
>
> Regards,
>              Sasha
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM
> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini)
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
>
>
> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a
> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS
> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt>
> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn
> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be
> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it
> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the
> standard-track solution does NOT suffer.
>
> -Ali
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 	From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]
> 	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM
> 	To: Luca Martini (lmartini)
> 	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
> 	Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
>
>
> 	Luca and all,
> 	I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
>
> 	In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially
> the same problem.
> 	Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to
> publish both as Informational RFCs.
>
> 	IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have
> several options:
>
> 	*	Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other
> one as Informational
> 	*	Publish both as Standards Track documents if the
> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has
> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)
> 	*	Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached
> 	*	Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not
> really require alternative proposals:-)
>
> 	BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.
>
> 	Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is
> not enough IMHO.
> 	You would need something close to the control plane sections of
> RFC 4762, only more complicated.
>
> 	Regards,
> 	            Sasha
> ________________________________
>
> 	From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]
> 	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
> 	To: Loa Andersson
> 	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
> 	Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
>
>
> 	Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> 		Loa Andersson wrote:
>
>
> 			Yakov,
>
> 			not sure here, but I think the draft specifies
> protocol and uses
> 			the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc
> ...) (though Kireeti
> 			as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
>
> 			So, short of major rewriting this can be
> "informational".
>
>
> 		So, short of major rewriting this can't be
> "informational".
>
>
>
> 	Loa,
> 	We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs
> yet they have the same characteristics as this document.
> 	So I do not agree that just because of the language of the
> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard
> recommendation of the IETF.
> 	I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single
> common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
> informational RFCs when needed.
> 	I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
> autodiscovery.
>
> 	Luca
>
>
> 	h
>
>
> 		sorry about that
>
> 		/Loa
>
>
>
> 			/Loa
>
> 			Yaakov Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> 				I just wanted to clarify that I raised
> my hand for making
> 				draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG
> document,
> 				but prefer it to be informational, not
> standards-track.
>
> 				Y(J)S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Kireeti.
-------




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 07:34:58 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUi1b-0000hL-0C; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:33:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUi1a-0000cN-1d
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:33:38 -0400
Received: from smail.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.165])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUi1Y-0002QS-Ii
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:33:38 -0400
Received: from gbmail02.netfr.alcatel.fr (gbmail02.netfr.alcatel.fr
	[155.132.251.26])
	by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id l2NBXedG023186;
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:33:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OF315080E0.EAC3F0E0-ON802572A7.003B5CB4-802572A7.003B8070@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:49:55 +0000
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GBMAIL02/GB/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 |
	June 23, 2005) at 03/23/2007 11:33:32
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

I would oppose this as as a standards track document.

IMO it should be informational.

Best regards,

Matthew




                                                                           
             Shane Amante                                                  
             <shane@castlepoin                                             
             t.net>                                                     To 
                                       l2vpn@ietf.org                      
             21/03/2007 16:27                                           cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane









From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 07:46:10 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUiCn-000443-SG; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:45:13 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUiCl-00043c-TF
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:45:11 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUiCj-0005YZ-7u
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:45:11 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88])
	by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2007 04:45:08 -0700
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138])
	by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2NBj8eo017288; 
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:45:08 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com
	[128.107.191.63])
	by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2NBj3wn021283;
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:45:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:45:03 -0700
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
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:45:02 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02F3EB94@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070322160819.H4628@kummer.juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS
Thread-Index: Acds2IeQ+OPc1uxOQ0SIpHN1uAnWFgAZx2lw
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>,
	"Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2007 11:45:03.0501 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[B1FFBBD0:01C76D40]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6452; t=1174650308;
	x=1175514308; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=20to=20PS
	|Sender:=20; bh=hHnZ+nAi76aMTUW3YAZqSvsFq5TBNZ1UtNJCJFaxSik=;
	b=sMQG6S9dhvLc46PlPGGWf9dWm3ET3GGpcTJGiy63uf/NwiX3uhHrDxKwbCG6FhS5bXwdshhE
	27pkOmoxClSrMzSUIx0TBQGcvJLyyF/C14G55Bn1imQRZ2NEd3YFrJKi;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim7002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bacfc6c7290e34d410f9bc22b825ce96
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:18 PM
> To: Sasha Vainshtein
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS
>=20
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
>=20
> > Ali and all,
> > Sorry, missed that fact completely.
>=20
> Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that!  Now, don't=20
> give up so easily!  :-)
>=20
> This is the only solution that addresses both the=20
> auto-discovery and signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*.  The PWE=20
> solution only addresses signaling of a *PW*.  An L2VPN=20
> consists of a number of related PWs (such as all those=20
> requested by an enterprise).
>=20

That is NOT true !! In the standard-track solution (described in the
draft below)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt=20

Section 3.3.2 talks about the auto-discovery for L2VPN/VPWS and section
3.3.3 talks about signaling for the L2VPN/VPWS. So my question still
remains that if there is already a comprehensive standard-track solution
exist that covers both auto-discovery and signaling, then why do I want
another one which has even other issues ??

> I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft=20
> die, or be relegated to "informational", for whatever=20
> reasons.  However, there are two important points that are=20
> being missed:
>=20
> a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document
>     (RFC 4761)
> b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and
>     RFC 4762 hold equally here.

In case of RFC 4761 & 4762, we didn't have a prior standard-track
solution and that's why we progressed both of them. But in this case, a
standard-track solution already exist !!

-Ali


>=20
> > In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed=20
> > progressed as an Informational RFC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >              Sasha
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM
> > To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini)
> > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
> > Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
> >
> >
> > I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a=20
> > standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS=20
> > signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of=20
> >=20
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
> >=20
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
> > > (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at=20
> most the l2vpn=20
> > draft using BGP signaling=20
> (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should=20
> > be just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward=20
> given that=20
> > it suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the=20
> > standard-track solution does NOT suffer.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > 	From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]
> > 	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM
> > 	To: Luca Martini (lmartini)
> > 	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
> > 	Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
> >
> >
> > 	Luca and all,
> > 	I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
> >
> > 	In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving=20
> essentially the=20
> > same problem.
> > 	Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has=20
> opted to publish=20
> > both as Informational RFCs.
> >
> > 	IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have=20
> > several options:
> >
> > 	*	Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other
> > one as Informational
> > 	*	Publish both as Standards Track documents if the
> > differences in the applicability justify that (this is how=20
> this WG has=20
> > published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)
> > 	*	Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
> > applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached
> > 	*	Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not
> > really require alternative proposals:-)
> >
> > 	BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.
> >
> > 	Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using=20
> LDP is not=20
> > enough IMHO.
> > 	You would need something close to the control plane=20
> sections of RFC=20
> > 4762, only more complicated.
> >
> > 	Regards,
> > 	            Sasha
> > ________________________________
> >
> > 	From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]
> > 	Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
> > 	To: Loa Andersson
> > 	Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > 	Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
> >
> >
> > 	Loa Andersson wrote:
> >
> > 		Loa Andersson wrote:
> >
> >
> > 			Yakov,
> >
> > 			not sure here, but I think the draft=20
> specifies protocol and uses
> > 			the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc
> > ...) (though Kireeti
> > 			as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
> >
> > 			So, short of major rewriting this can=20
> be "informational".
> >
> >
> > 		So, short of major rewriting this can't be
> > "informational".
> >
> >
> >
> > 	Loa,
> > 	We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs
> > yet they have the same characteristics as this document.
> > 	So I do not agree that just because of the language of the
> > document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard
> > recommendation of the IETF.
> > 	I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single
> > common method. However it is also common practice to permit=20
> additional
> > informational RFCs when needed.
> > 	I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
> > autodiscovery.
> >
> > 	Luca
> >
> >
> > 	h
> >
> >
> > 		sorry about that
> >
> > 		/Loa
> >
> >
> >
> > 			/Loa
> >
> > 			Yaakov Stein wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 				I just wanted to clarify that I raised
> > my hand for making
> > 				draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG
> > document,
> > 				but prefer it to be informational, not
> > standards-track.
> >
> > 				Y(J)S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
> Kireeti.
> -------
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 07:56:50 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUiN8-0002nS-S2; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:55:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUiN7-0002mG-MJ
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:55:53 -0400
Received: from audl952.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.159])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUiN2-0008TO-3y
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:55:53 -0400
Received: from usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs02.usa.alcatel.com
	[172.22.216.13])
	by audl952.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id l2NBtlQf017804
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:55:47 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.9]) by
	usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:55:47 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76D42.31CF846F"
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:55:47 -0500
Message-ID: <AAB04BBD95798441A70C0CE74A8BFB760EE225@USDALSMBS01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: AcdtQBEQjyh7PqfLRT66J/JO/zw9+AAAiB6Z
From: "AISSAOUI Mustapha" <Mustapha.Aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2007 11:55:47.0371 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[31C67FB0:01C76D42]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97c820c82c68af374c4e382a80dc5017
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76D42.31CF846F
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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==

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76D42.31CF846F
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_001_01C76D42.31CF846F--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 12:04:02 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUmE8-00061O-Js; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:02:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUmE6-00060x-Sz
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:02:50 -0400
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.131])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUmE2-0002hZ-I7
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:02:50 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1174665765!4298683!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 7825 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2007 16:02:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh9i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4)
	by server-9.tower-146.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
	23 Mar 2007 16:02:45 -0000
Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2NG2hRS019132; 
	Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:02:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12])
	by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id
	l2NG2d7b019069; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
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
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:02:39 -0500
Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DDBD752@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1nJ4o95RRx/wTj2DexHryKfZHgBjct5g
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my=20
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 23 12:32:11 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HUmfH-0003Tn-HT; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:30:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUmfG-0003Tc-TS
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:30:54 -0400
Received: from omr1.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.51])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUmfB-0007T7-Lb
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:30:54 -0400
Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr1.mgt.netsol.com
	[10.49.6.64])
	by omr1.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id
	l2NGUl07000986 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:30:49 -0400
Message-Id: <200703231630.l2NGUl07000986@omr1.networksolutionsemail.com>
Received: (qmail 12935 invoked by uid 78); 23 Mar 2007 16:30:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Inbox) (64.213.122.1)
	by ns-omr1.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP;
	23 Mar 2007 16:30:46 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: William Zayas <william.zayas@fibercrossing.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:30:46 -0400
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>,
	Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Also support standar track

william

-----Original Message-----
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard@att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>; l2vpn@ietf.org
Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my=20
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane








From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 09:13:28 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWuPE-0004M2-KZ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:11:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWuPD-0004K8-L2
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:11:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWuPB-0000Jp-E8
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:11:07 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159])
	by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 09:11:06 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13])
	by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2TDB5FD010716; 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:11:05 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.70.36])
	by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2TDB0lG005895; 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:11:00 GMT
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> of "Wed,
	21 Mar 2007 17:27:10 +0100." <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net> 
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:11:00 -0500
Message-ID: <7841.1175173860@cisco.com>
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=229; t=1175173865;
	x=1176037865; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20Eric=20Rosen=20<erosen@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=20
	|Sender:=20 |To:=20Shane=20Amante=20<shane@castlepoint.net>;
	bh=qk0MvUzsBOz9qvjeN2eFLRo0Z0CJbYezTT7nlvnz8H4=;
	b=GOlPBnfkf+W6h8DdlyrwnGSP3YOR1S9Y20jUQd9SMGKWnKsXGgQo7N+fQ7cxetY7EudZx+4b
	oQQxSJv2YjZSC/0RD/rzAldNX4YBYKlU8znN/FSnFBOp7gma0iMjvsec;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=erosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, erosen@cisco.com
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

I'm sorry to see this document come back to life after several years of much
deserved retirement. 

I oppose its adoption  as a WG document, but have no  objection to its being
published as an individual informational RFC. 




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 09:19:46 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWuX9-0002HD-5L; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:19 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWuX8-0002H0-4l
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:18 -0400
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.16])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWuX6-00022Z-PC
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:18 -0400
Received: from ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.155]) by
	ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:19:13 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:19:12 +0200
Message-ID: <5A0FF108221C7C4E85738678804B567C048484C5@ftrdmel3.rd.francetelecom.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1nEn8roJjK6+R4OVBjxDuP6/AgGLGzbg
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
From: "DECRAENE Bruno RD-CORE-ISS" <bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2007 13:19:13.0719 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[D8451470:01C77204]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

I support (for Standards Track).

Bruno

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De=A0: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> Envoy=E9=A0: mercredi 21 mars 2007 17:27
> =C0=A0: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Objet=A0: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over =
for
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
> apologies for the confusion.
>=20
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -shane





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 10:39:54 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWvmL-00031d-R3; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:39:05 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWvmK-00031Y-Tm
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:39:04 -0400
Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWvmH-0006qr-Lt
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:39:04 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10])
	by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA;
	29 Mar 2007 07:39:01 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,347,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="678265322:sNHT28950068"
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90])
	by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l2TEd1J24799;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l2TEcwjK030864;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:39:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost)
	by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id
	l2TEcsJV030856; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7841.1175173860@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20070329073755.E30850@kummer.juniper.net>
References: <7841.1175173860@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Eric Rosen wrote:

> I'm sorry to see this document come back to life after several years of much
> deserved retirement.

:-)

Kireeti.
-------




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 11:30:35 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWwYZ-0007bE-RO; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:28:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWwYY-0007aO-Gw
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:28:54 -0400
Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=smtp.testbed.se)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWwYW-0008V6-I1
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:28:54 -0400
Received: from tng250-dhcp.verkstad.net ([192.71.20.250])
	by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWwYS-0002Id-GE; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:28:50 +0200
Message-ID: <460BDB11.8050009@pi.se>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:28:17 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
References: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
	<969EBA797DDBFE479AA66625ADCBC3552D37EF@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <969EBA797DDBFE479AA66625ADCBC3552D37EF@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: -1.4 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6
Cc: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

All,

it is my take that the decision tree here is:


                        start
                          |
              +------------------------+
              |                        |
          individual             working group doc
            (done)                     |
                            +------------------------+
                            |                        |
                      standards track           informational
                         (done)                    (doc)

1. we decide first whether this will become a working group document
   or not

2. if we say *no* we don't need to bother if it is
   informational or standards track

3. if we say *yes* we need to decide whether it is
    informational or standards track

4. if we say standards track we are

5. if we say inforamational we are also done

However, sending a working group document using the 2119 language
to the IESG, will result in rather pointed questions from a very
reluctant IESG. If we go there a document revision to re-write it
infaormational language be better.

Also, if we decide not making it a working group document, Kireeti
can do whatever he want with it, so sugestions like *individual and
informational* maght be viewed as good advice by Kireeti, but nothing
the wg can decide.

/Loa


Lasserre, Marc (Marc) wrote:
> Informational RFC would be my preference.
> 
> Cheers,
> Marc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] 
> Sent: mercredi 21 mars 2007 17:27
> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> 
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the 
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about 
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended 
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. 
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at 
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
> 
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my 
> apologies for the confusion.
> 
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people 
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -shane
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 13:25:41 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWyMP-0006cR-0u; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:24:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWyMN-0006b9-I4
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:24:27 -0400
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWyML-0004se-Bo
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:24:27 -0400
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139])
	by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 19:24:25 +0200
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150])
	by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2THOOES006523
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:24:24 +0200
Received: from [64.103.65.68] (dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-68.cisco.com
	[64.103.65.68])
	by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2THOOlZ017148
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:24 GMT
Message-ID: <460BF647.1010701@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:24:23 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
References: <D849FF14B5E0B142ADFC9A92C509E9BBC80227@tlv2.iprad.local>
	<20070322160819.H4628@kummer.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070322160819.H4628@kummer.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6834; t=1175189064;
	x=1176053064; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20<stbryant@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=20to=20PS
	|Sender:=20; bh=qB4bsGBsPpkEkO98sv7TyuJ0akud5xIXM7OHUqPLPIM=;
	b=H8uANq+GKW1XLszl1tZMT7+fCT+Oc5xun/GXHGdR/dLScV29/ULKQEH+7LcPcYXdKtL1/Gnx
	uMMzFkUt1n3GbT62+tZgqWCssvvTdzsRmBeXZlwL3TTM4PsRrR58rUpO;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cdb443e3957ca9b4c5b55e78cfcf4b26
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only have 
ONE standards track method.

There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was universally 
agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. With CESoPSN and 
TDMoIP - on which there was no universal agreement both were published 
as informational. The position here is that *if* the market eventually 
decides  on one of the two approaches  that will be advanced to 
standards track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market.

Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was agreed that 
unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new signaling protocol 
we would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling.

We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed method 
of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional standards track 
approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing, but will 
increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both methods and may 
well introduce interworking issues.

We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept merits 
an RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If at a later date the 
market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and only then 
should we consider standards track status for this approach.

- Stewart


Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
>
>> Ali and all,
>> Sorry, missed that fact completely.
>
> Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that!  Now, don't give up 
> so easily!  :-)
>
> This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and 
> signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*.  The PWE solution only addresses 
> signaling of a *PW*.  An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs 
> (such as all those requested by an enterprise).
>
> I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, or be 
> relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons.  However, there 
> are two important points that are being missed:
>
> a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document
>    (RFC 4761)
> b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and
>    RFC 4762 hold equally here.
>
>> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed
>> progressed as an Informational RFC.
>>
>> Regards,
>>              Sasha
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM
>> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini)
>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
>> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !!
>>
>>
>> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a
>> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS
>> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt
>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt>
>> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn
>> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be
>> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it
>> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the
>> standard-track solution does NOT suffer.
>>
>> -Ali
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>     From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]
>>     Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM
>>     To: Luca Martini (lmartini)
>>     Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson
>>     Subject: RE: Raising of hands ...
>>
>>
>>     Luca and all,
>>     I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable.
>>
>>     In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially
>> the same problem.
>>     Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to
>> publish both as Informational RFCs.
>>
>>     IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have
>> several options:
>>
>>     *    Publish one as  a Standards Track document and the other
>> one as Informational
>>     *    Publish both as Standards Track documents if the
>> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has
>> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS)
>>     *    Publish both as Informational if the differences in the
>> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached
>>     *    Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not
>> really require alternative proposals:-)
>>
>>     BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far.
>>
>>     Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is
>> not enough IMHO.
>>     You would need something close to the control plane sections of
>> RFC 4762, only more complicated.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>                 Sasha
>> ________________________________
>>
>>     From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]
>>     Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM
>>     To: Loa Andersson
>>     Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org
>>     Subject: Re: Raising of hands ...
>>
>>
>>     Loa Andersson wrote:
>>
>>         Loa Andersson wrote:
>>
>>
>>             Yakov,
>>
>>             not sure here, but I think the draft specifies
>> protocol and uses
>>             the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc
>> ...) (though Kireeti
>>             as usual is to lazy to capitalize.
>>
>>             So, short of major rewriting this can be
>> "informational".
>>
>>
>>         So, short of major rewriting this can't be
>> "informational".
>>
>>
>>
>>     Loa,
>>     We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs
>> yet they have the same characteristics as this document.
>>     So I do not agree that just because of the language of the
>> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard
>> recommendation of the IETF.
>>     I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single
>> common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional
>> informational RFCs when needed.
>>     I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for
>> autodiscovery.
>>
>>     Luca
>>
>>
>>     h
>>
>>
>>         sorry about that
>>
>>         /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>>             /Loa
>>
>>             Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>                 I just wanted to clarify that I raised
>> my hand for making
>>                 draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG
>> document,
>>                 but prefer it to be informational, not
>> standards-track.
>>
>>                 Y(J)S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Kireeti.
> -------
>




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 16:19:06 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX13F-0005SN-4v; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:16:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX13D-0005SI-Ql
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:16:51 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX13C-0001IL-J6
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:16:51 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO emailfeemea2.jnpr.net) ([172.26.192.142])
	by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 13:16:49 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,348,1170662400"; 
	d="scan'208"; a="699073736:sNHT74836476"
Received: from emailemea4.jnpr.net ([172.26.192.133]) by emailfeemea2.jnpr.net
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:16:48 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:16:48 +0100
Message-ID: <367450C2F78C9B40B6A815BDC484D11F07107359@emailemea4.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <46015CDE.5010006@castlepoint.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1j9HZ9PUm3xeRuuiP52TPaniCgGaHZwg
From: "Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,
	<l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2007 20:16:48.0574 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[2E208DE0:01C7723F]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I prefer it
to become a standard.


Cheers,

Bruno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over
for
> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
> apologies for the confusion.
>=20
> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -shane




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 16:19:27 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX15f-0006gG-80; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:19:23 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX15c-0006fz-9P
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:19:21 -0400
Received: from callisto.ip.tiscali.net ([213.200.88.12])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX15b-0001pR-1h
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:19:20 -0400
Received: (qmail 34744 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2007 20:21:34 -0000
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:21:34 +0200
From: Sven Engelhardt <sven@tiscali.net>
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20070329202134.GA34526@tiscali.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Organization: Tiscali International Network B.V. - IP Network Engineering
X-Accept-Language: en,de
User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (FreeBSD)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Cc: shane@castlepoint.net
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Shane,

> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

I am.

Sven





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 16:54:04 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX1c4-0006zd-MN; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:52 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX1c3-0006zX-Nl
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:51 -0400
Received: from mailipao.ntcif.telstra.com.au ([202.12.233.27])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX1bw-00008C-Q9
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:52:51 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO mailai.ntcif.telstra.com.au) ([202.12.162.17])
	by mailipao.ntcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2007 06:52:31 +1000
Received: from mail.cdn.telstra.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailai.ntcif.telstra.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AC8D2FF81; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:52:30 +1000 (EST)
Received: from wsmsg2902.srv.dir.telstra.com (wsmsg2902.srv.dir.telstra.com
	[172.49.40.51]) by mail.cdn.telstra.com.au (8.8.2/8.6.9) with
	ESMTP id GAA10752; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:52:30 +1000 (EST)
Received: from WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.32]) by
	wsmsg2902.srv.dir.telstra.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:52:30 +1000
Received: from 172.203.4.115 ([172.203.4.115]) by
	WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.31]) with Microsoft
	Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:52:29 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:52:26 +1000
From: Ian Stanley <ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
To: Bruno De Troch <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C232642A.105AB%ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1j9HZ9PUm3xeRuuiP52TPaniCgGaHZwgAAFcmqQ=
In-Reply-To: <367450C2F78C9B40B6A815BDC484D11F07107359@emailemea4.jnpr.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="B_3258082346_4056684"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2007 20:52:30.0003 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[2A84B030:01C77244]
X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 827a2a57ca7ab0837847220f447e8d56
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3258082346_4056684
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Agree fully, the market needs this resolved

Cheers
Ian


On 30/3/07 6:16 AM, "Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net> wrote:Bruno De
Troch

> I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I prefer it
> to become a standard.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bruno
> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
>> > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
>> > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>> >
>> > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
>> > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
>> > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
>> > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
>> > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
>> > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over
> for
>> > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
>> > apologies for the confusion.
>> >
>> > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
>> > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
>> > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > -shane
> 


 
Regards,
Ian Stanley
National Manager
Architecture & Design
IP & Data
Core Networks | Engineering
02 9396 8508
0419 257221

This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of
Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended
recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this
communication, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please reply to this email to
notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and
your reply. Thank you.
 


--B_3258082346_4056684
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-siz=
e:12.0px'>Agree fully, the market needs this resolved<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
Ian<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 30/3/07 6:16 AM, &quot;Bruno De Troch&quot; &lt;bdetroch@juniper.net&gt;=
 wrote:Bruno De Troch<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Ar=
ial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'>I know multiple networks where this is a=
lready deployed, so I prefer it<BR>
to become a standard.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
Bruno<BR>
<BR>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: Shane Amante [<a href=3D"mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]">mailto:sha=
ne@castlepoint.net]</a><BR>
&gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27<BR>
&gt; To: l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the<=
BR>
&gt; L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about<BR=
>
&gt; making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended<BR>
&gt; Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.<BR>
&gt; Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=
<BR>
&gt; the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over<B=
R>
for<BR>
&gt; the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. &nbsp;S=
o, my<BR>
&gt; apologies for the confusion.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=
<BR>
&gt; are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the<BR=
>
&gt; 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; Thanks,<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; -shane<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica=
, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica,=
 Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10.0px'>Regards,<BR>
Ian Stanley<BR>
National Manager<BR>
Architecture &amp; Design<BR>
IP &amp; Data<BR>
Core Networks | Engineering<BR>
02 9396 8508<BR>
0419 257221<BR>
<BR>
This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Tel=
stra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended re=
cipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this communi=
cation, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have rece=
ived this communication in error, please reply to this email to notify the s=
ender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and your reply. Tha=
nk you.<BR>
&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3258082346_4056684--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 18:32:50 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX38v-0006VK-V5; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:30:53 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX38u-0006Jt-1n
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:30:52 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX38q-0005Rj-Fn
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:30:51 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196])
	by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 15:30:47 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254])
	by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2TMUl7t012140; 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:30:47 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com
	[171.70.151.144])
	by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2TMUKZr013239;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:30:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:30:36 -0700
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
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:30:35 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FA4F8B@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <367450C2F78C9B40B6A815BDC484D11F07107359@emailemea4.jnpr.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1j9HZ9PUm3xeRuuiP52TPaniCgGaHZwgAARDeIA=
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2007 22:30:36.0233 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[DEFC1B90:01C77251]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1836; t=1175207447;
	x=1176071447; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20;
	bh=jdQklE4xv6vKm5XSEAs577asUlSJ+FC76muRyN+aUow=;
	b=K3eRUfUpjC/eiENjL9HmGnkhItAgZ5zuDw63KLzY3PH8UqCwTQO7bhGG7OREqOHz/UkAkR5f
	ebj3U5pNuZ98es5zxn/+fjtsnt4EOsNztw6eozc3seVx2tHiMV8VbOnc;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

... And I know many more networks that don't have such deployment and
some of them plan to do theirs based on the standard-track solution
specified in the l2vpn-signaling draft. So, as I have said previously,
given that we have a comprehensive solution which is standard-track,
there is no need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.

-Ali=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I=20
> prefer it to become a standard.
>=20
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Bruno
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >=20
> > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just=20
> after the=20
> > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20
> > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
> > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over=20
> our time at=20
> > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over
> for
> > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify=20
> it.  So, my=20
> > apologies for the confusion.
> >=20
> > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How=20
> many people=20
> > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20
> > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> >=20
> > Thanks,
> >=20
> > -shane
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 29 21:36:48 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX619-0007JU-Fc; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:35:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX5zf-00066G-Hs
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:33:31 -0400
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX5xF-0003R5-SS
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:31:03 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE8E92268E;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 08585-07; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from youro0kwkw9jwc (unknown [172.31.253.182])
	by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B13292268C;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Renwei Li" <renweili@redback.com>
To: "'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'" <sajassi@cisco.com>,
	"'Bruno De Troch'" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"'Shane Amante'" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:36:32 -0700
Organization: Redback Networks
Message-ID: <000201c7726b$dba306b0$0203a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FA4F8B@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: renweili@redback.com
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or informational
RFC, do we need to take into account how many deployments there are? If
so, I see more implementations and deployments based on
pwe3-control-protocol draft.

On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is intended to
potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend to obsolete other
drafts using this new one?

Just some quick thoughts...

Renwei 





-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

... And I know many more networks that don't have such deployment and
some of them plan to do theirs based on the standard-track solution
specified in the l2vpn-signaling draft. So, as I have said previously,
given that we have a comprehensive solution which is standard-track,
there is no need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.

-Ali 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> 
> I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I 
> prefer it to become a standard.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bruno
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > 
> > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just 
> after the 
> > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about 
> > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended 
> > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over 
> our time at 
> > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over
> for
> > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify 
> it.  So, my 
> > apologies for the confusion.
> > 
> > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How 
> many people 
> > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 
> > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > -shane
> 







From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 00:01:14 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX8Gz-0003dA-DT; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:59:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX8Gy-0003d5-MK
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:59:32 -0400
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX8Gx-0003O3-9x
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:59:32 -0400
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d30so382833and
	for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=He3TBaUlapID7KUivzrocHJBSXFCaNHibBzb6+S7gANMxGMpZLWoty+5WsU2mVTUQ2er6YNJrEb2O+320SExp+y3RIqxKWLw3K34qunNxIek6IV7kv3v4xg6XZD3dS2jlXei7YCexTR9TbHRWxdr3d7Bu+wDRFw1ht9OCIIMzAM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=RBRpbIUHiTchYlleTDqdHHSGn2DATd1DqJs3lqw8IK93ssdvwiDVg687TD0dGoWzR6RFXdwwnrVIZOTzAxbtXdw1qpPmXjIF4qAusCk4J5/DWivSerhL8RpolAwIOPsOPO4Bh7cPgQdo/si8N2CHcuYze1KFc3sMW11WDbHjVmU=
Received: by 10.100.93.5 with SMTP id q5mr1031161anb.1175227171040;
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.250.20 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8c99930d0703292059j5456f21bn2666235571a8549c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:59:30 -0400
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FA4F8B@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_75869_10218850.1175227170960"
References: <367450C2F78C9B40B6A815BDC484D11F07107359@emailemea4.jnpr.net>
	<75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FA4F8B@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

------=_Part_75869_10218850.1175227170960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Since there's obviously no consensus on the list to make this
standards-track, I think informational is the obvious way to go.

Cheers,
Andy

On 3/29/07, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> ... And I know many more networks that don't have such deployment and
> some of them plan to do theirs based on the standard-track solution
> specified in the l2vpn-signaling draft. So, as I have said previously,
> given that we have a comprehensive solution which is standard-track,
> there is no need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
> wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>
> -Ali
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >
> > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I
> > prefer it to become a standard.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > >
> > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
> > after the
> > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
> > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
> > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> > our time at
> > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over
> > for
> > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify
> > it.  So, my
> > > apologies for the confusion.
> > >
> > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many people
> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
> > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -shane
> >
>
>

------=_Part_75869_10218850.1175227170960
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Since there&#39;s obviously no consensus on the list to make this standards-track, I think informational is the obvious way to go.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Andy<br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ali Sajassi (sajassi)</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:sajassi@cisco.com">sajassi@cisco.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">... And I know many more networks that don&#39;t have such deployment and<br>some of them plan to do theirs based on the standard-track solution
<br>specified in the l2vpn-signaling draft. So, as I have said previously,<br>given that we have a comprehensive solution which is standard-track,<br>there is no need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I<br>wouldn&#39;t mind this draft to become informational RFC.
<br><br>-Ali<br><br>&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:<a href="mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net">bdetroch@juniper.net</a>]<br>&gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM<br>&gt; To: Shane Amante; 
<a href="mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org">l2vpn@ietf.org</a><br>&gt; Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I<br>&gt; prefer it to become a standard.<br>
&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Bruno<br>&gt;<br>&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; &gt; From: Shane Amante [mailto:<a href="mailto:shane@castlepoint.net">shane@castlepoint.net</a>]<br>&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
<br>&gt; &gt; To: <a href="mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org">l2vpn@ietf.org</a><br>&gt; &gt; Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; I was approached by several people outside the hallway just<br>&gt; after the
<br>&gt; &gt; L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about<br>&gt; &gt; making this draft a WG document, in particular over the &#39;Intended<br>&gt; &gt; Status&#39; of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
<br>&gt; &gt; Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over<br>&gt; our time at<br>&gt; &gt; the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over<br>&gt; for<br>&gt; &gt; the IETF plenary session, so I didn&#39;t have time to clarify
<br>&gt; it.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, my<br>&gt; &gt; apologies for the confusion.<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How<br>&gt; many people<br>&gt; &gt; are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
<br>&gt; &gt; &#39;Intended Status&#39; is Standards Track?<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; Thanks,<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; -shane<br>&gt;<br><br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_75869_10218850.1175227170960--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 01:42:20 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX9r0-0003Qz-9K; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:40:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HX9qz-0003Qr-Kj
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:40:49 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]
	helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HX9qy-0003Zz-9Y
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:40:49 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196])
	by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 22:40:48 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237])
	by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2U5elbt023515; 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:40:47 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com
	[171.70.151.144])
	by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2U5elMF008399;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:40:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:40:47 -0700
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
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:40:46 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <000201c7726b$dba306b0$0203a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQA
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: <renweili@redback.com>, "Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 05:40:47.0439 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F7A995F0:01C7728D]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3095; t=1175233247;
	x=1176097247; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20;
	bh=ZrQ3qXzUuz9AqTZjw+F0DRO21W0fhRqPcsyRAEGKGyo=;
	b=gRmEyB5qcsdMderxNt5NZoQ34CnvIOHQFrsUllVh8m+Ve+GPkMydUUtJ6hRWAazVPy8ux6ab
	LlGYiNGwcwCn1k/yBvlr8OyaVERkULiLZEzvjm7uyTCxO0P89it9J6mk;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org


And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control
protocol (RFC 4447).

-Ali=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';=20
> l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or=20
> informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many=20
> deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and=20
> deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
>=20
> On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is=20
> intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend=20
> to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>=20
> Just some quick thoughts...
>=20
> Renwei=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> ... And I know many more networks that don't have such=20
> deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the=20
> standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling=20
> draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a=20
> comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no=20
> need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I=20
> wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>=20
> -Ali=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >=20
> > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so=20
> I prefer=20
> > it to become a standard.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > Bruno
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > >=20
> > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
> > after the
> > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the=20
> room about=20
> > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
> > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> > our time at
> > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert=20
> the room over
> > for
> > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify
> > it.  So, my
> > > apologies for the confusion.
> > >=20
> > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many people
> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG=20
> draft *if* the=20
> > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> > >=20
> > > Thanks,
> > >=20
> > > -shane
> >=20
>=20
>=20




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 02:44:48 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXAnn-0008FP-8f; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:41:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXAnl-0008F9-UV
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:41:33 -0400
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com ([135.245.0.39])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXAnf-0001Ca-Ge
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:41:33 -0400
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2])
	by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l2U6e3oR016604;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:41:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from inexp02.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.66]) by
	ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:40:44 -0500
Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by
	inexp02.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:10:36 +0530
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
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:10:56 +0530
Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQA=
From: "Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, <renweili@redback.com>,
	"Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 06:40:36.0204 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[52BBAAC0:01C77296]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based
method.
We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for
PWE3.

-Pranjal

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02


And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control
protocol (RFC 4447).

-Ali=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';=20
> l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or=20
> informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many=20
> deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and=20
> deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
>=20
> On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is=20
> intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend=20
> to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>=20
> Just some quick thoughts...
>=20
> Renwei=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> ... And I know many more networks that don't have such=20
> deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the=20
> standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling=20
> draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a=20
> comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no=20
> need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I=20
> wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>=20
> -Ali=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >=20
> > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so=20
> I prefer=20
> > it to become a standard.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > Bruno
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > >=20
> > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
> > after the
> > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the=20
> room about=20
> > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
> > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> > our time at
> > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert=20
> the room over
> > for
> > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify
> > it.  So, my
> > > apologies for the confusion.
> > >=20
> > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many people
> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG=20
> draft *if* the=20
> > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> > >=20
> > > Thanks,
> > >=20
> > > -shane
> >=20
>=20
>=20





From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 03:55:53 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXBwZ-0007vw-NI; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:54:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBwX-0007vZ-Rr
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:54:42 -0400
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([135.245.0.35])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBwW-0003ta-3w
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:54:41 -0400
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2])
	by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l2U7sGpb004214;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:54:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from inexp02.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.66]) by
	ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:54:19 -0500
Received: from INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com ([135.254.223.20]) by
	inexp02.in.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:23:38 +0530
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
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:23:59 +0530
Message-ID: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550938D@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c7729d$ff231670$3201a8c0@Einstein2>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8AAAoEEA
From: "Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Max Ng" <mngpl@singnet.com.sg>,
	"Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, <renweili@redback.com>, 
	"Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 07:53:38.0929 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[870A6E10:01C772A0]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: dbb8771284c7a36189745aa720dc20ab
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope it didn't mean
something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for *informational*.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]=20
Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)';
renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go
with
informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed
upon
and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide
otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]=20
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane
Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based
method.
We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for
PWE3.

-Pranjal

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02


And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control
protocol (RFC 4447).

-Ali=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';=20
> l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or=20
> informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many=20
> deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and=20
> deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
>=20
> On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is=20
> intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend=20
> to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>=20
> Just some quick thoughts...
>=20
> Renwei=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> ... And I know many more networks that don't have such=20
> deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the=20
> standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling=20
> draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a=20
> comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no=20
> need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I=20
> wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>=20
> -Ali=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >=20
> > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so=20
> I prefer=20
> > it to become a standard.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
> > Bruno
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > >=20
> > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
> > after the
> > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the=20
> room about=20
> > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20
> > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> > our time at
> > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert=20
> the room over
> > for
> > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify
> > it.  So, my
> > > apologies for the confusion.
> > >=20
> > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many people
> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG=20
> draft *if* the=20
> > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
> > >=20
> > > Thanks,
> > >=20
> > > -shane
> >=20
>=20
>=20








From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 09:12:36 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXGsv-0008HS-8x; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:11:17 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXGst-0008HE-Mu
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:11:15 -0400
Received: from mx2-n.rad.co.il ([62.0.23.221] helo=antivir2.rad.co.il)
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXGsr-0001QT-AJ
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:11:15 -0400
Received: from exrad3.rad.co.il (HELO exrad3.ad.rad.co.il) ([192.114.24.112])
	by antivir2.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2007 15:11:08 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C772CC.E1254908"
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:11:06 +0300
Message-ID: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D03A4DA86@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <C232642A.105AB%ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdr1j9HZ9PUm3xeRuuiP52TPaniCgGaHZwgAAFcmqQAIhlvgA==
From: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s@rad.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>,
	<l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C772CC.E1254908
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

	I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so I
prefer it
	to become a standard.
=09
	This is precisely why I asked for it to be issued as an
informational RFC.
	Since it is deployed, we need it documented.
	=20
	But, I prefer NOT to have 2 "standard" signaling mechanisms.
	=20
	Y(J)S


------_=_NextPart_001_01C772CC.E1254908
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">I know multiple networks where this is =
already=20
  deployed, so I prefer it<BR>to become a standard.<BR><BR><SPAN=20
  class=3D233480813-30032007><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>This is=20
  precisely why I asked for it to be issued as an informational=20
  RFC.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><SPAN class=3D233480813-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Since it</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>is deployed, we need it =
documented.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><SPAN=20
  class=3D233480813-30032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><SPAN=20
  class=3D233480813-30032007>But, I prefer NOT to have 2 "standard" =
signaling=20
  mechanisms.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><SPAN=20
  class=3D233480813-30032007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><SPAN=20
  =
class=3D233480813-30032007>Y(J)S</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><=
/BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C772CC.E1254908--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 18:22:26 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXPRV-0004Yj-6c; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:19:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXPRT-0004Ye-Vi
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:19:31 -0400
Received: from mailipbo.ntcif.telstra.com.au ([202.12.233.29])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXPRM-00050W-IC
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:19:31 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbi.ntcif.telstra.com.au) ([202.12.162.19])
	by mailipbo.ntcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2007 08:19:14 +1000
Received: from mail2.cdn.telstra.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailbi.ntcif.telstra.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9A2CEFF81; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:19:13 +1000 (EST)
Received: from wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com (wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com
	[192.74.195.51]) by mail2.cdn.telstra.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5085441DA5; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:19:13 +1000 (EST)
Received: from WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.32]) by
	wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:19:13 +1000
Received: from 172.202.17.80 ([172.202.17.80]) by
	WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.31]) with Microsoft
	Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:19:12 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:19:09 +1000
From: Ian Stanley <ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
To: "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>,
	Max Ng <mngpl@singnet.com.sg>,
	"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, <renweili@redback.com>,
	Bruno De Troch <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C233C9FD.10828%ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8AAAoEEAAB5Rfj4=
In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550938D@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="B_3258173949_57766"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 22:19:13.0246 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[724E4FE0:01C77319]
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 3dc828214e948ff35b815af10e94a823
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3258173949_57766
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity
please...=B2how does the market indicate its need to you to start the process
for standard track=B2

I would have thought that with many implementations of this would be enough

Cheers
Ian


On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)

> My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope it didn't mean
> something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for *informational*.
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]
> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM
> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)';
> renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go
> with
> informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed
> upon
> and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide
> otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track.
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane
> Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
> Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based
> method.
> We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for
> PWE3.
>=20
> -Pranjal
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
> To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>=20
>=20
> And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control
> protocol (RFC 4447).
>=20
> -Ali
>=20
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
>> > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';
>> > l2vpn@ietf.org
>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>> >
>> > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or
>> > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many
>> > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and
>> > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is
>> > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend
>> > to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>> >
>> > Just some quick thoughts...
>> >
>> > Renwei
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
>> > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>> >
>> > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such
>> > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the
>> > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling
>> > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a
>> > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no
>> > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
>> > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>> >
>> > -Ali
>> >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
>>> > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
>>> > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
>>> > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>> > >
>>> > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so
>> > I prefer
>>> > > it to become a standard.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > >
>>> > > Bruno
>>> > >
>>>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
>>>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
>>>> > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
>>>> > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just
>>> > > after the
>>>> > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the
>> > room about
>>>> > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intende=
d
>>>> > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track=
.
>>>> > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
>>> > > our time at
>>>> > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert
>> > the room over
>>> > > for
>>>> > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify
>>> > > it.  So, my
>>>> > > > apologies for the confusion.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
>>> > > many people
>>>> > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG
>> > draft *if* the
>>>> > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Thanks,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > -shane
>>> > >
>> >
>> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20


=20
Regards,
Ian Stanley
National Manager
Architecture & Design
IP & Data
Core Networks | Engineering
02 9396 8508
0419 257221

This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of
Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intende=
d
recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this
communication, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please reply to this email to
notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and
your reply. Thank you.
=20


--B_3258173949_57766
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-siz=
e:12.0px'>Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity pl=
ease...&#8221;how does the market indicate its need to you to start the proc=
ess for standard track&#8221;<BR>
<BR>
I would have thought that with many implementations of this would be enough=
<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
Ian<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, &quot;Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)&quot; &lt;pdutta@alcatel=
-lucent.com&gt; wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Ar=
ial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'>My &quot;support&quot; meant supporting =
Ali's comment. I hope it didn't mean<BR>
something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for *informational*.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Max Ng [<a href=3D"mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]">mailto:mngpl@singnet.c=
om.sg]</a><BR>
Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM<BR>
To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)';<BR>
renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go<BR>
with<BR>
informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed<BR>
upon<BR>
and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide<BR>
otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [<a href=3D"mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]"=
>mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]</a><BR>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM<BR>
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane<BR>
Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based<BR>
method.<BR>
We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for<BR=
>
PWE3.<BR>
<BR>
-Pranjal<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [<a href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mailto:saj=
assi@cisco.com]</a><BR>
Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM<BR>
To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control<BR>
protocol (RFC 4447).<BR>
<BR>
-Ali<BR>
<BR>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: Renwei Li [<a href=3D"mailto:renweili@redback.com]">mailto:renweil=
i@redback.com]</a><BR>
&gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM<BR>
&gt; To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';<BR>
&gt; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or<BR>
&gt; informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many<BR>
&gt; deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and<BR>
&gt; deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is<BR>
&gt; intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend<BR>
&gt; to obsolete other drafts using this new one?<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; Just some quick thoughts...<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; Renwei<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [<a href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mailt=
o:sajassi@cisco.com]</a><BR>
&gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM<BR>
&gt; To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; ... And I know many more networks that don't have such<BR>
&gt; deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the<BR>
&gt; standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling<BR>
&gt; draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a<BR>
&gt; comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no<BR>
&gt; need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I<BR>
&gt; wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; -Ali<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; &gt; From: Bruno De Troch [<a href=3D"mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]">mail=
to:bdetroch@juniper.net]</a><BR>
&gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM<BR>
&gt; &gt; To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; &gt; Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so<BR>
&gt; I prefer<BR>
&gt; &gt; it to become a standard.<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Cheers,<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Bruno<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; From: Shane Amante [<a href=3D"mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]">=
mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]</a><BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; To: l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; I was approached by several people outside the hallway just<=
BR>
&gt; &gt; after the<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the<BR>
&gt; room about<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Int=
ended<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards T=
rack.<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over<B=
R>
&gt; &gt; our time at<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert<BR>
&gt; the room over<BR>
&gt; &gt; for<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify<B=
R>
&gt; &gt; it. &nbsp;So, my<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; apologies for the confusion.<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How<B=
R>
&gt; &gt; many people<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG<BR>
&gt; draft *if* the<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Thanks,<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; -shane<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica=
, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica,=
 Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10.0px'>Regards,<BR>
Ian Stanley<BR>
National Manager<BR>
Architecture &amp; Design<BR>
IP &amp; Data<BR>
Core Networks | Engineering<BR>
02 9396 8508<BR>
0419 257221<BR>
<BR>
This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Tel=
stra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended re=
cipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this communi=
cation, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have rece=
ived this communication in error, please reply to this email to notify the s=
ender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and your reply. Tha=
nk you.<BR>
&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3258173949_57766--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 30 19:56:09 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXQvn-0004rO-W6; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:54:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXQvk-0004qO-4o
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:54:54 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXQvj-0006Yk-63
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:54:52 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186])
	by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2007 16:54:50 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238])
	by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2UNsoD6028278; 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:54:50 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com
	[128.107.191.100])
	by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2UNsdEi012983;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:54:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by
	xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:54:39 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C77326.C6ED1F0D"
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:54:38 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C233C9FD.10828%ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8AAAoEEAAB5Rfj4AAvH0MA==
From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Ian Stanley" <ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>,
	"Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>,
	"Max Ng" <mngpl@singnet.com.sg>, <renweili@redback.com>,
	"Bruno De Troch" <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	"Shane Amante" <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2007 23:54:39.0113 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[C7304790:01C77326]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=17530; t=1175298890;
	x=1176162890; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com;
	z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20<sajassi@cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20;
	bh=Fyy1p//j53OdcmN9KYm5XHSST278qo8seXhmyPJ1YNc=;
	b=z1UQ9YcRnfAeDAsu18tvhrejBEuZPfjPy4X5BXK3aza33use+gxBNpqvffyvXfE0ZWKJ5UM7
	CL0RFzcYnKrj5qMDEgnZTERzAZW3a6bT1eDq3VeE9revY5o38Q8lQccF;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb7a33d18683bf5063a44e640cf125f1
Cc: 
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77326.C6ED1F0D
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ian,
=20
Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in favor of
progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even
suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I think what
people are saying is that before we talk about standard-track RFC, we
need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this draft
such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at interoperability issue
between this solution and the current standard-track solution. So, I
think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good step till
these issues are addressed.=20
=20
Cheers,
Ali


________________________________

	From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com]=20
	Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM
	To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi);
renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
	Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
=09
=09
	Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity
please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the
process for standard track"
=09
	I would have thought that with many implementations of this
would be enough
=09
	Cheers
	Ian
=09
=09
	On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)"
<pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)
=09
=09

		My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope it
didn't mean
		something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for
*informational*.
	=09
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]
		Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM
		To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)';
		renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';
l2vpn@ietf.org
		Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
	=09
		A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is
still to go
		with
		informational on grounds that we focus on what has
already been agreed
		upon
		and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near
future decide
		otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track.
	=09
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)
[mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]
		Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
		To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno
De Troch; Shane
		Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
		Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
	=09
		Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted
for LDP based
		method.
		We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with
LDP signaling for
		PWE3.
	=09
		-Pranjal
	=09
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
		Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
		To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante;
l2vpn@ietf.org
		Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
	=09
	=09
		And the current standard-track solution is based on the
PWE3 control
		protocol (RFC 4447).
	=09
		-Ali
	=09
		> -----Original Message-----
		> From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]
		> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
		> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane
Amante';
		> l2vpn@ietf.org
		> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
		>
		> When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or
		> informational RFC, do we need to take into account how
many
		> deployments there are? If so, I see more
implementations and
		> deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
		>
		> On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless
it is
		> intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we
intend
		> to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
		>
		> Just some quick thoughts...
		>
		> Renwei
		>
		>
		>
		>
		>
		> -----Original Message-----
		> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
		> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
		> To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
		> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
		>
		> ... And I know many more networks that don't have such
		> deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on
the
		> standard-track solution specified in the
l2vpn-signaling
		> draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we
have a
		> comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there
is no
		> need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
		> wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
		>
		> -Ali
		>
		> > -----Original Message-----
		> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
		> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
		> > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
		> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
		> >
		> > I know multiple networks where this is already
deployed, so
		> I prefer
		> > it to become a standard.
		> >
		> >
		> > Cheers,
		> >
		> > Bruno
		> >
		> > > -----Original Message-----
		> > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
		> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
		> > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
		> > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
		> > >
		> > > I was approached by several people outside the
hallway just
		> > after the
		> > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll
in the
		> room about
		> > > making this draft a WG document, in particular
over the 'Intended
		> > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or
Standards Track.
		> > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after
running over
		> > our time at
		> > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could
convert
		> the room over
		> > for
		> > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to
clarify
		> > it.  So, my
		> > > apologies for the confusion.
		> > >
		> > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question
here: How
		> > many people
		> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a
WG
		> draft *if* the
		> > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track?
		> > >
		> > > Thanks,
		> > >
		> > > -shane
		> >
		>
		>
	=09
	=09
	=09
	=09
	=09
	=09

=09
=09
=09
	Regards,
	Ian Stanley
	National Manager
	Architecture & Design
	IP & Data
	Core Networks | Engineering
	02 9396 8508
	0419 257221
=09
	This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright
information of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you
are not an intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use,
save or rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised
and prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and
then delete both it and your reply. Thank you.
	=20
=09


------_=_NextPart_001_01C77326.C6ED1F0D
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Ian,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Because of a few implementation of this =
solution, we are in=20
favor of progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not =
even=20
suggest the status of&nbsp;informational RFC for this draft. I think =
what people=20
are saying is that before we talk about standard-track RFC, we need to =
really=20
look at some of the issues that are related to this draft such as =
inter-AS as=20
well as we need to look at interoperability issue between this solution =
and the=20
current standard-track solution. So, I think progressing this draft as=20
informational RFC is a good step till these issues are addressed.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D702284323-30032007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Ali</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Ian Stanley=20
  [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March =
30,=20
  2007 3:19 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali =
Sajassi=20
  (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante;=20
  l2vpn@ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:=20
  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, =
Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">Interesting debate and positioning, but one =
question=20
  of clarity please...&#8221;how does the market indicate its need to =
you to start the=20
  process for standard track&#8221;<BR><BR>I would have thought that =
with many=20
  implementations of this would be =
enough<BR><BR>Cheers<BR>Ian<BR><BR><BR>On=20
  30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" =
&lt;pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com&gt;=20
  wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
  <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, =
Arial"><SPAN=20
    style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">My "support" meant supporting Ali's =
comment. I hope=20
    it didn't mean<BR>something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for =

    *informational*.<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Max Ng =
[<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]">mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]</A><BR=
>Sent:=20
    Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM<BR>To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali =
Sajassi=20
    (sajassi)';<BR>renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane =
Amante';=20
    l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>Subject: RE: =
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR><BR>A lot=20
    has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to=20
    go<BR>with<BR>informational on grounds that we focus on what has =
already=20
    been agreed<BR>upon<BR>and rid the confusion. Should the market in =
the near=20
    future decide<BR>otherwise, we can progress it to Standard=20
    track.<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Dutta, Pranjal =
(Pranjal)=20
    [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]">mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.c=
om]</A><BR>Sent:=20
    Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM<BR>To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);=20
    renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane<BR>Amante;=20
    l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>Subject: RE:=20
    draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR><BR>Completely support this. The =
l2vpn-sig=20
    already adopted for LDP based<BR>method.<BR>We have wide deployments =
for=20
    both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling=20
    for<BR>PWE3.<BR><BR>-Pranjal<BR><BR>-----Original =
Message-----<BR>From: Ali=20
    Sajassi (sajassi) [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]</A><BR>Sent:=
=20
    Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM<BR>To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno =
De Troch;=20
    Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>Subject: RE:=20
    draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR><BR><BR>And the current =
standard-track=20
    solution is based on the PWE3 control<BR>protocol (RFC=20
    4447).<BR><BR>-Ali<BR><BR>&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; =
From:=20
    Renwei Li [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:renweili@redback.com]">mailto:renweili@redback.com]</A><BR=
>&gt;=20
    Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM<BR>&gt; To: Ali Sajassi =
(sajassi);=20
    'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';<BR>&gt; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>&gt; =
Subject:=20
    RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; When we decide =
something=20
    to be a standard track RFC or<BR>&gt; informational RFC, do we need =
to take=20
    into account how many<BR>&gt; deployments there are? If so, I see =
more=20
    implementations and<BR>&gt; deployments based on =
pwe3-control-protocol=20
    draft.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; On the other hand, a standard should be =
unique unless=20
    it is<BR>&gt; intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we =

    intend<BR>&gt; to obsolete other drafts using this new =
one?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
    Just some quick thoughts...<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
    Renwei<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; -----Original =

    Message-----<BR>&gt; From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]</A><BR>&gt; =
Sent:=20
    Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM<BR>&gt; To: Bruno De Troch; Shane =
Amante;=20
    l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>&gt; Subject: RE:=20
    draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; ... And I know many =
more=20
    networks that don't have such<BR>&gt; deployment and some of them =
plan to do=20
    theirs based on the<BR>&gt; standard-track solution specified in the =

    l2vpn-signaling<BR>&gt; draft. So, as I have said previously, given =
that we=20
    have a<BR>&gt; comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there =
is=20
    no<BR>&gt; need for another one. However, as mentioned before, =
I<BR>&gt;=20
    wouldn't mind this draft to become informational =
RFC.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
    -Ali<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; &gt; =
From:=20
    Bruno De Troch [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]">mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]</A><BR=
>&gt;=20
    &gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM<BR>&gt; &gt; To: Shane =
Amante;=20
    l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>&gt; &gt; Subject: RE:=20
    draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; I know =
multiple=20
    networks where this is already deployed, so<BR>&gt; I prefer<BR>&gt; =
&gt; it=20
    to become a standard.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; =
Cheers,<BR>&gt;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Bruno<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original =

    Message-----<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; From: Shane Amante [<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]">mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]</A><=
BR>&gt;=20
    &gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; =
To:=20
    l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject:=20
    draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; I =
was=20
    approached by several people outside the hallway just<BR>&gt; &gt; =
after=20
    the<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a =
poll in=20
    the<BR>&gt; room about<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; making this draft a WG =
document, in=20
    particular over the 'Intended<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Status' of this WG =
draft,=20
    e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; =
Unfortunately, we=20
    were abruptly cut off after running over<BR>&gt; &gt; our time =
at<BR>&gt;=20
    &gt; &gt; the end of the meeting, in order so they could =
convert<BR>&gt; the=20
    room over<BR>&gt; &gt; for<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; the IETF plenary =
session, so I=20
    didn't have time to clarify<BR>&gt; &gt; it. &nbsp;So, my<BR>&gt; =
&gt; &gt;=20
    apologies for the confusion.<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Let =
me now=20
    ask a hopefully more precise question here: How<BR>&gt; &gt; many=20
    people<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; are in favor of making the aforementioned =
draft a=20
    WG<BR>&gt; draft *if* the<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; 'Intended Status' is =
Standards=20
    Track?<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Thanks,<BR>&gt; &gt; =
&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
    &gt; &gt; -shane<BR>&gt;=20
    =
&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><F=
ONT=20
  face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px"><FONT=20
  face=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN><FONT =
size=3D2><FONT=20
  face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10px">Regards,<BR>Ian Stanley<BR>National=20
  Manager<BR>Architecture &amp; Design<BR>IP &amp; Data<BR>Core Networks =
|=20
  Engineering<BR>02 9396 8508<BR>0419 257221<BR><BR>This communication =
may=20
  contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Telstra Corporation =
Limited=20
  (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended recipient, you MUST =
NOT keep,=20
  forward, copy, use, save or rely on this communication, and any such =
action is=20
  unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this communication =
in error,=20
  please reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect =
delivery, and=20
  then delete both it and your reply. Thank=20
  you.<BR>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
  face=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN=20
  style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12px"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77326.C6ED1F0D--




From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 31 04:46:30 2007
Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HXZCH-0006FI-RL; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:44:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXZCH-0006F3-0I
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:44:29 -0400
Received: from mailipao.vtcif.telstra.com.au ([202.12.144.27])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXZC9-0003Zj-4Y
	for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:44:28 -0400
Received: from maili.vtcif.telstra.com.au (HELO mailai.vtcif.telstra.com.au)
	([202.12.142.17])
	by mailipao.vtcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2007 18:44:10 +1000
Received: from mail.cdn.telstra.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailai.vtcif.telstra.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 093161DA81; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:44:10 +1000 (EST)
Received: from wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com (wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com
	[192.74.195.51]) by mail.cdn.telstra.com.au (8.8.2/8.6.9) with
	ESMTP id SAA04346; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:44:09 +1000 (EST)
Received: from WSMSG2152V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.16]) by
	wsmsg2952.srv.dir.telstra.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:44:09 +1000
Received: from WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.32]) by
	WSMSG2152V.srv.dir.telstra.com with Microsoft
	SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:44:09 +1000
Received: from 172.203.10.116 ([172.203.10.116]) by
	WSMSG2156V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([192.74.195.31]) with Microsoft
	Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:44:08 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:44:05 +1000
From: Ian Stanley <ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>,
	"Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>,
	Max Ng <mngpl@singnet.com.sg>, <renweili@redback.com>,
	Bruno De Troch <bdetroch@juniper.net>,
	Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C2345C75.10833%ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8AAAoEEAAB5Rfj4AAvH0MAAS4WL/
In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="B_3258211445_93689"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2007 08:44:09.0043 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[BF8AE230:01C77370]
X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 10e6cb90de4fe268e7150fb24857273b
Cc: 
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>,
	<mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3258211445_93689
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Ali,

Agree

Many thanks

Cheers
Ian


On 31/3/07 9:54 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> wrote:Ali
Sajassi (sajassi)

> Ian,
> =20
> Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in favor of
> progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even suggest=
 the
> status of informational RFC for this draft. I think what people are sayin=
g is
> that before we talk about standard-track RFC, we need to really look at s=
ome
> of the issues that are related to this draft such as inter-AS as well as =
we
> need to look at interoperability issue between this solution and the curr=
ent
> standard-track solution. So, I think progressing this draft as informatio=
nal
> RFC is a good step till these issues are addressed.
> =20
> Cheers,
> Ali
>=20
>> =20
>> =20
>>=20
>>  From: Ian Stanley  [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 30,  2007 3:19 PM
>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi  (sajassi);
>> renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante;  l2vpn@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>=20
>> =20
>> Interesting debate and positioning, but one question  of clarity
>> please...=B2how does the market indicate its need to you to start the  pro=
cess
>> for standard track=B2
>>=20
>> I would have thought that with many  implementations of this would be en=
ough
>>=20
>> Cheers
>> Ian
>>=20
>>=20
>> On  30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.c=
om>
>> wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)
>>=20
>> =20
>>> My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope  it didn't mean
>>> something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for  *informational*.
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]
>>> Sent:  Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM
>>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi  (sajassi)';
>>> renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';  l2vpn@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>=20
>>> A lot  has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to  go
>>> with
>>> informational on grounds that we focus on what has already  been agreed
>>> upon
>>> and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near  future decide
>>> otherwise, we can progress it to Standard  track.
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)  [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]
>>> Sent:  Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
>>> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);  renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane
>>> Amante;  l2vpn@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>=20
>>> Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig  already adopted for LDP based
>>> method.
>>> We have wide deployments for  both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling  =
for
>>> PWE3.
>>>=20
>>> -Pranjal
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ali  Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>>> Sent:  Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
>>> To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch;  Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> And the current standard-track  solution is based on the PWE3 control
>>> protocol (RFC  4447).
>>>=20
>>> -Ali
>>>=20
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From:  Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]
>>>> >  Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
>>>> > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);  'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';
>>>> > l2vpn@ietf.org
>>>> > Subject:  RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>> >
>>>> > When we decide something  to be a standard track RFC or
>>>> > informational RFC, do we need to take  into account how many
>>>> > deployments there are? If so, I see more  implementations and
>>>> > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol  draft.
>>>> >
>>>> > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless  it is
>>>> > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we  intend
>>>> > to obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>>>> >
>>>> >  Just some quick thoughts...
>>>> >
>>>> >  Renwei
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original  Message-----
>>>> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>>>> > Sent:  Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
>>>> > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante;  l2vpn@ietf.org
>>>> > Subject: RE:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>> >
>>>> > ... And I know many more  networks that don't have such
>>>> > deployment and some of them plan to do  theirs based on the
>>>> > standard-track solution specified in the  l2vpn-signaling
>>>> > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we  have a
>>>> > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is  no
>>>> > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I
>>>> >  wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.
>>>> >
>>>> >  -Ali
>>>> >
>>>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > > From:  Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
>>>>> >  > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
>>>>> > > To: Shane Amante;  l2vpn@ietf.org
>>>>> > > Subject: RE:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I know multiple  networks where this is already deployed, so
>>>> > I prefer
>>>>> > > it  to become a standard.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Cheers,
>>>>> >  >
>>>>> > > Bruno
>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > -----Original  Message-----
>>>>>> > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]
>>>>>> >  > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
>>>>>> > > > To:  l2vpn@ietf.org
>>>>>> > > > Subject:  draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > I was  approached by several people outside the hallway just
>>>>> > > after  the
>>>>>> > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in  the
>>>> > room about
>>>>>> > > > making this draft a WG document, in  particular over the 'Inte=
nded
>>>>>> > > > Status' of this WG draft,  e.g.: Informational or Standards Tr=
ack.
>>>>>> > > > Unfortunately, we  were abruptly cut off after running over
>>>>> > > our time at
>>>>>> >  > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert
>>>> > the  room over
>>>>> > > for
>>>>>> > > > the IETF plenary session, so I  didn't have time to clarify
>>>>> > > it.  So, my
>>>>>> > > >  apologies for the confusion.
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Let me now  ask a hopefully more precise question here: How
>>>>> > > many  people
>>>>>> > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a  WG
>>>> > draft *if* the
>>>>>> > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards  Track?
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > Thanks,
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> >  > > -shane
>>>>> >  >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Ian Stanley
>> National  Manager
>> Architecture & Design
>> IP & Data
>> Core Networks |  Engineering
>> 02 9396 8508
>> 0419 257221
>>=20
>> This communication may  contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of
>> Telstra Corporation Limited  (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an int=
ended
>> recipient, you MUST NOT keep,  forward, copy, use, save or rely on this
>> communication, and any such action is  unauthorised and prohibited. If y=
ou
>> have received this communication in error,  please reply to this email t=
o
>> notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and  then delete both it an=
d
>> your reply. Thank  you.
>> =20
>=20


=20
Regards,
Ian Stanley
National Manager
Architecture & Design
IP & Data
Core Networks | Engineering
02 9396 8508
0419 257221

This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of
Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intende=
d
recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this
communication, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please reply to this email to
notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and
your reply. Thank you.
=20


--B_3258211445_93689
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-siz=
e:12.0px'>Ali,<BR>
<BR>
Agree<BR>
<BR>
Many thanks<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
Ian<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 31/3/07 9:54 AM, &quot;Ali Sajassi (sajassi)&quot; &lt;sajassi@cisco.com=
&gt; wrote:Ali Sajassi (sajassi)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000=
FF"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Ian,<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Because of a few implementa=
tion of this solution, we are in favor of progressing it as informational RF=
C; otherwise, we would not even suggest the status of informational RFC for =
this draft. I think what people are saying is that before we talk about stan=
dard-track RFC, we need to really look at some of the issues that are relate=
d to this draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at interoperabil=
ity issue between this solution and the current standard-track solution. So,=
 I think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good step till the=
se issues are addressed. <BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Cheers,<BR>
Ali<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Comic =
Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"100%"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Tahoma"><B>From:=
</B> Ian Stanley &nbsp;[<a href=3D"mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com]">mai=
lto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com]</a> <BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 30, &nbsp;2007 3:19 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi &nbsp;(sajassi); r=
enweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
Interesting debate and positioning, but one question &nbsp;of clarity pleas=
e...&#8221;how does the market indicate its need to you to start the &nbsp;p=
rocess for standard track&#8221;<BR>
<BR>
I would have thought that with many &nbsp;implementations of this would be =
enough<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
Ian<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On &nbsp;30/3/07 5:53 PM, &quot;Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)&quot; &lt;pdutta@a=
lcatel-lucent.com&gt; &nbsp;wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Comic =
Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">My &quot;support&quot; meant supporting =
Ali's comment. I hope &nbsp;it didn't mean<BR>
something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for &nbsp;*informational*.<B=
R>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Max Ng [<a href=3D"mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]">mailto:mngpl@singnet.c=
om.sg]</a><BR>
Sent: &nbsp;Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM<BR>
To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi &nbsp;(sajassi)';<BR>
renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.or=
g<BR>
Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
A lot &nbsp;has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to &nb=
sp;go<BR>
with<BR>
informational on grounds that we focus on what has already &nbsp;been agree=
d<BR>
upon<BR>
and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near &nbsp;future decide<BR=
>
otherwise, we can progress it to Standard &nbsp;track.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) &nbsp;[<a href=3D"mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent=
.com]">mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com]</a><BR>
Sent: &nbsp;Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM<BR>
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); &nbsp;renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shan=
e<BR>
Amante; &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
Subject: RE: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig &nbsp;already adopted for LDP based<=
BR>
method.<BR>
We have wide deployments for &nbsp;both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling =
&nbsp;for<BR>
PWE3.<BR>
<BR>
-Pranjal<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ali &nbsp;Sajassi (sajassi) [<a href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mail=
to:sajassi@cisco.com]</a><BR>
Sent: &nbsp;Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM<BR>
To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; &nbsp;Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.or=
g<BR>
Subject: RE: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And the current standard-track &nbsp;solution is based on the PWE3 control<=
BR>
protocol (RFC &nbsp;4447).<BR>
<BR>
-Ali<BR>
<BR>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: &nbsp;Renwei Li [<a href=3D"mailto:renweili@redback.com]">mailto:r=
enweili@redback.com]</a><BR>
&gt; &nbsp;Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM<BR>
&gt; To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); &nbsp;'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';<BR>
&gt; l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; Subject: &nbsp;RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; When we decide something &nbsp;to be a standard track RFC or<BR>
&gt; informational RFC, do we need to take &nbsp;into account how many<BR>
&gt; deployments there are? If so, I see more &nbsp;implementations and<BR>
&gt; deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol &nbsp;draft.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless &nbsp;it is<BR>
&gt; intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we &nbsp;intend<BR=
>
&gt; to obsolete other drafts using this new one?<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;Just some quick thoughts...<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;Renwei<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; -----Original &nbsp;Message-----<BR>
&gt; From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [<a href=3D"mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]">mailt=
o:sajassi@cisco.com]</a><BR>
&gt; Sent: &nbsp;Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM<BR>
&gt; To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; Subject: RE: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; ... And I know many more &nbsp;networks that don't have such<BR>
&gt; deployment and some of them plan to do &nbsp;theirs based on the<BR>
&gt; standard-track solution specified in the &nbsp;l2vpn-signaling<BR>
&gt; draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we &nbsp;have a<BR>
&gt; comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is &nbsp;no<BR>
&gt; need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC.<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;-Ali<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>
&gt; &gt; From: &nbsp;Bruno De Troch [<a href=3D"mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]=
">mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]</a><BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM<BR>
&gt; &gt; To: Shane Amante; &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; &gt; Subject: RE: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; I know multiple &nbsp;networks where this is already deployed, so=
<BR>
&gt; I prefer<BR>
&gt; &gt; it &nbsp;to become a standard.<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Cheers,<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Bruno<BR>
&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original &nbsp;Message-----<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; From: Shane Amante [<a href=3D"mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]">=
mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]</a><BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; To: &nbsp;l2vpn@ietf.org<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: &nbsp;draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; I was &nbsp;approached by several people outside the hallway=
 just<BR>
&gt; &gt; after &nbsp;the<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in &nbsp;t=
he<BR>
&gt; room about<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; making this draft a WG document, in &nbsp;particular over th=
e 'Intended<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Status' of this WG draft, &nbsp;e.g.: Informational or Stand=
ards Track.<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Unfortunately, we &nbsp;were abruptly cut off after running =
over<BR>
&gt; &gt; our time at<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &gt; the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert=
<BR>
&gt; the &nbsp;room over<BR>
&gt; &gt; for<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the IETF plenary session, so I &nbsp;didn't have time to cla=
rify<BR>
&gt; &gt; it. &nbsp;So, my<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &nbsp;apologies for the confusion.<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Let me now &nbsp;ask a hopefully more precise question here:=
 How<BR>
&gt; &gt; many &nbsp;people<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a &nbsp;WG<B=
R>
&gt; draft *if* the<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; 'Intended Status' is Standards &nbsp;Track?<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Thanks,<BR>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &gt; -shane<BR>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Comic=
 Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica,=
 Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10.0px'>Regards,<BR>
Ian Stanley<BR>
National &nbsp;Manager<BR>
Architecture &amp; Design<BR>
IP &amp; Data<BR>
Core Networks | &nbsp;Engineering<BR>
02 9396 8508<BR>
0419 257221<BR>
<BR>
This communication may &nbsp;contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information =
of Telstra Corporation Limited &nbsp;(ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an=
 intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, &nbsp;forward, copy, use, save or re=
ly on this communication, and any such action is &nbsp;unauthorised and proh=
ibited. If you have received this communication in error, &nbsp;please reply=
 to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and &nbsp;the=
n delete both it and your reply. Thank &nbsp;you.<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helve=
tica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica=
, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica,=
 Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10.0px'>Regards,<BR>
Ian Stanley<BR>
National Manager<BR>
Architecture &amp; Design<BR>
IP &amp; Data<BR>
Core Networks | Engineering<BR>
02 9396 8508<BR>
0419 257221<BR>
<BR>
This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Tel=
stra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended re=
cipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this communi=
cation, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have rece=
ived this communication in error, please reply to this email to notify the s=
ender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and your reply. Tha=
nk you.<BR>
&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Comic Sans MS, Verdana, Helvetica, A=
rial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3258211445_93689--