From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 04 17:18:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdY2G-000574-5t; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:08 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdY2B-000531-T4; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:03 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdY2A-0000yi-Ou; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:03 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2083E329E9; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IdY29-0006Dt-Uj; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:01 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:01 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-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 : VPLS Interoperability with CE Bridges Author(s) : A. Sajassi, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2007-10-4 One of the main motivations behind VPLS is its ability to provide connectivity not only among customer routers and servers/hosts but also among customer bridges. If only connectivity among customer IP routers/hosts was desired, then IPLS solution [IPLS] could have been used. The strength of the VPLS solution is that it can provide connectivity to both bridge and non-bridge types of CE devices. VPLS is expected to deliver the same level of service that current enterprise users are accustomed to from their own enterprise bridged networks today or the same level of service that they receive from their Ethernet Service Providers using IEEE 802.1ad-based networks [P802.1ad] (or its predecessor, QinQ-based network). When CE devices are IEEE bridges, then there are certain issues and challenges that need to be accounted for in a VPLS network. Majority of these issues have currently been addressed in IEEE 802.1ad standard for provider bridges and they need to be addressed for VPLS networks. This draft discusses these issues and wherever possible, the recommended solutions to these issues. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.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-bridge-interop-02.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-bridge-interop-02.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: <2007-10-4161650.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-10-4161650.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 04 21:38:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc6Q-0002jw-Hd; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc6O-0002eg-PT; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:40 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc66-0001Qm-Ez; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:28 -0400 Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id F398026870F; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:35:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [172.16.15.25] (71-215-89-214.hlrn.qwest.net [71.215.89.214]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:35:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=71.215.89.214; client-port=4373; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1460,N,W0,N,N,T,S MacOS 10.4.8; data-bytes=0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) To: Townsley Mark , WG Milestone Tracker Message-Id: <5478BD83-BB26-4E59-9790-3268AE3D34A2@castlepoint.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-639987090 From: Shane Amante Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:34:28 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e367d58950869b6582535ddf5a673488 Cc: Vach Kompella , l2vpn@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-2-639987090 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Please publish draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09.txt as an Informational RFC. Attached is the document shepherd write-up. Thanks, -shane --Apple-Mail-2-639987090 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name=draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09-proto.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09-proto.txt PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09=0D =0D The L2VPN Chairs would like to request publication of this document as = an Informational RFC.=0D =0D (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the=0D Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=0D document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=0D version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=0D= =0D Shane Amante (shane@castlepoint.net) is the Document Shepherd. I have = reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.=0D =0D =0D (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=0D= and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=0D= any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=0D have been performed?=0D =0D The document has been reviewed by the WG, during the WG Last Call, and = through IETF L2VPN WG meetings. There were no concerns raised during WG = Last Call.=0D =0D I have no concerns about the state of readiness of this document.=0D =0D =0D (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=0D needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=0D e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=0D= AAA, internationalization, or XML?=0D =0D Several Vendors and a few Service Providers have contributed to and = reviewed the requirements contained in this document. I have no = concerns about this document, and believe it does not require further = reviews from a broader perspective.=0D =0D =0D (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=0D issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director=0D= and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=0D= or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or=0D= has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=0D event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=0D= that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=0D concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=0D= been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=0D disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=0D= this issue.=0D =0D I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there any = concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or the Responsible AD.=0D =0D =0D (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=0D= represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=0D others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=0D= agree with it?=0D =0D This document is understood. No one objected to publishing it during = the WG Last Call. It is expected that this document will guide = development of OAM solutions for VPLS and VPWS.=0D =0D =0D (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme=0D= discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in=0D= separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=0D= should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=0D entered into the ID Tracker.)=0D =0D No one has indicated to the WG Chairs or to the WG Mailing List any = intention to appeal the publication of this document.=0D =0D =0D (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=0D document satisfies all ID nits? (See=0D http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and=0D http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are=0D= not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=0D= met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=0D Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document=0D does not already indicate its intended status at the top of=0D the first page, please indicate the intended status here.=0D =0D Yes. There are 4 warnings and 2 comments. The 'Intended Status' needs = to be updated to Informational, Form Feeds inserted and, finally, the = Normative References need to be updated to correspond to (recently) = published RFC's. The authors will correct these references during the = Author Review period, given by the RFC-Editor.=0D =0D =0D (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=0D informative?=0D =0D Yes.=0D =0D Are there normative references to documents that=0D are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=0D= state? If such normative references exist, what is the=0D strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=0D= that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=0D= so, list these downward references to support the Area=0D Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=0D =0D No.=0D =0D =0D (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA=0D Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body=0D= of the document?=0D =0D Yes. There is no IANA Considerations for this document, which is = reasonable given its intended purpose.=0D =0D =0D If the document specifies protocol=0D extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=0D registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=0D= the document creates a new registry, does it define the=0D proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=0D procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=0D reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the=0D= document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document=0D= Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that=0D= the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?=0D= =0D (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=0D document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=0D code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=0D= an automated checker?=0D =0D Yes.=0D =0D =0D (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=0D Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=0D Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the=0D "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=0D= announcement contains the following sections:=0D =0D Technical Summary=0D This draft provides framework and requirements for Layer 2 Virtual=0D Private Networks (L2VPN) Operation, Administration and Maintenance=0D (OAM). The OAM framework is intended to provide OAM layering across=0D L2VPN services, Pseudo Wires (PWs) and Packet Switched Network (PSN)=0D tunnels. The requirements are intended to identify OAM requirement=0D for L2VPN services (i.e. VPLS, VPWS, and IPLS). Furthermore, if=0D L2VPN services OAM requirements impose specific requirements on PW=0D OAM and/or PSN OAM, those specific PW and/or PSN OAM requirements=0D are also identified.=0D =0D =0D Working Group Summary=0D This document has been reviewed by carriers and experts in the L2VPN WG = and there are no outstanding issues.=0D =0D =0D Document Quality=0D This memo is straightforward and well written. No issues are = anticipated.=0D =0D =0D Personnel=0D Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?=0D Shane Amante (shane@castlepoint.net)=0D =0D Who is the Responsible Area Director?=0D Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)= --Apple-Mail-2-639987090-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 04 21:39:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc9S-00067p-Vw; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:38:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc9R-00067i-3N; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:38:49 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idc9P-0001VY-1E; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:38:49 -0400 Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id D6A54268713; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:38:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [172.16.15.25] (71-215-89-214.hlrn.qwest.net [71.215.89.214]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:38:46 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=71.215.89.214; client-port=4661; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1460,N,W0,N,N,T,S MacOS 10.4.8; data-bytes=0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) To: Townsley Mark , WG Milestone Tracker Message-Id: <96B96B83-9318-40EC-B33D-09FFD814BF2D@castlepoint.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-640229898 From: Shane Amante Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:38:30 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e367d58950869b6582535ddf5a673488 Cc: Vach Kompella , l2vpn@ietf.org, jari.arkko@piuha.net Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-4-640229898 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Please publish draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt as an Informational RFC. Attached is the Document Shepherd write-up. Thanks, -shane --Apple-Mail-4-640229898 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name=draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02-proto.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02-proto.txt PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02=0D =0D The L2VPN Chairs would like to request publication of this document as = an Informational RFC.=0D =0D (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the=0D Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=0D document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=0D version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=0D= =0D Shane Amante (shane@castlepoint.net) is the Document Shepherd. I have = reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.=0D =0D =0D (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=0D= and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=0D= any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=0D have been performed?=0D =0D The document has been reviewed by the WG, during the WG Last Call, and = through IETF L2VPN WG meetings. There were no concerns raised during WG = Last Call.=0D =0D I have no concerns about the state of readiness of this document.=0D =0D =0D (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=0D needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=0D e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=0D= AAA, internationalization, or XML?=0D =0D A large Service Provider, several Vendors and others have contributed to = and reviewed the requirements contained in this document. I have no = concerns about this document, and believe it does not require further = reviews from a broader perspective.=0D =0D =0D (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=0D issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director=0D= and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=0D= or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or=0D= has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=0D event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=0D= that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=0D concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=0D= been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=0D disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=0D= this issue.=0D =0D I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there any = concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or the Responsible AD.=0D =0D =0D (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=0D= represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=0D others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=0D= agree with it?=0D =0D This document is well understood and has broad support by the L2VPN WG. = This document is widely recognized by the WG as a valuable contribution = intended to assist implementers, and Service Providers, understand not = only the issues that may be encountered, but also (in some cases) = potential solutions, when deploying VPLS with IEEE bridges as CE = devices.=0D =0D =0D (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme=0D= discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in=0D= separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=0D= should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=0D entered into the ID Tracker.)=0D =0D No one has indicated to the WG Chairs or to the WG Mailing List any = intention to appeal the publication of this document.=0D =0D =0D (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=0D document satisfies all ID nits? (See=0D http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and=0D http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are=0D= not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=0D= met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=0D Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document=0D does not already indicate its intended status at the top of=0D the first page, please indicate the intended status here.=0D =0D Yes. There is one error, which is 34 instances of non-ASCII characters. = The authors will correct these references during the Author Review = period, given by the RFC-Editor.=0D =0D =0D (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=0D informative?=0D =0D Yes.=0D =0D Are there normative references to documents that=0D are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=0D= state? If such normative references exist, what is the=0D strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=0D= that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=0D= so, list these downward references to support the Area=0D Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=0D =0D No.=0D =0D =0D (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA=0D Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body=0D= of the document?=0D =0D Yes. There is no IANA Considerations for this document, which is = reasonable given its intended purpose.=0D =0D =0D If the document specifies protocol=0D extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=0D registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=0D= the document creates a new registry, does it define the=0D proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=0D procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=0D reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the=0D= document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document=0D= Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that=0D= the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?=0D= =0D (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=0D document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=0D code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=0D= an automated checker?=0D =0D Yes.=0D =0D =0D (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=0D Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=0D Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the=0D "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=0D= announcement contains the following sections:=0D =0D Technical Summary=0D When CE devices are IEEE bridges, then there are certain issues and=0D challenges that need to be accounted for in a VPLS network. The majority=0D= of these issues have currently been addressed in the IEEE 802.1ad=0D standard for provider bridges and they need to be addressed for VPLS=0D networks as well. This draft discusses these issues and wherever = possible,=0D the recommended solutions to these issues.=0D =0D =0D Working Group Summary=0D This document has been reviewed by carriers and experts in the L2VPN WG = and there are no outstanding issues.=0D =0D =0D Document Quality=0D This memo is straightforward and well written. No issues are = anticipated.=0D =0D =0D Personnel=0D Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?=0D Shane Amante (shane@castlepoint.net)=0D =0D Who is the Responsible Area Director?=0D Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)= --Apple-Mail-4-640229898-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 26 10:01:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhG-0006RE-Kw; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhD-0006FV-9i; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:55 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhC-0005Se-6P; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:55 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26930328F8; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:57:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPgi-0002Hf-23; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:24 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:24 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk (L2VPN OAM Requirements and Framework) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'L2VPN OAM Requirements and Framework ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12302&rfc_flag=0 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 26 10:01:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiQ-0000dJ-3W; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiN-0000Xs-0X; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:07 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiL-0005WA-Py; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:06 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE633328F8; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:59:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiL-0003oG-M6; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:05 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:05 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts (Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhG-0006RE-Kw; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhD-0006FV-9i; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:55 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPhC-0005Se-6P; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:55 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26930328F8; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:57:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPgi-0002Hf-23; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:24 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:24 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk (L2VPN OAM Requirements and Framework) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'L2VPN OAM Requirements and Framework ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-09.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12302&rfc_flag=0 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 26 10:01:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiQ-0000dJ-3W; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiN-0000Xs-0X; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:07 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiL-0005WA-Py; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:06 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE633328F8; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:59:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IlPiL-0003oG-M6; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:05 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:59:05 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts (Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13941&rfc_flag=0 f.org> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN Services ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13941&rfc_flag=0 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 26 10:56:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlQaL-00027v-Mj; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlQaI-00020Y-He; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:50 -0400 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlQaH-00084V-E9; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:50 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63849328F3; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:54:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IlQZn-0004t6-A5; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:19 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:54:19 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop (VPLS Interoperability with CE Bridges) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG (l2vpn) to consider the following document: - 'VPLS Interoperability with CE Bridges ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15038&rfc_flag=0 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 29 23:23:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImhdY-0000ym-4b; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:19:28 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImhdX-0000yg-3l for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:19:27 -0400 Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImhdW-0000zJ-S4 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:19:27 -0400 Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 8FA1226805B; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:19:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmac.castlepoint.net (71-218-96-227.hlrn.qwest.net [71.218.96.227]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:19:26 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=71.218.96.227; client-port=2537; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1460,N,W3,N,N,T,S MacOS 10.4.8; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: <5CBA32E2-7E6F-404A-8BB1-B7B44F08A2AD@castlepoint.net> From: Shane Amante To: l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v912) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:19:11 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.912) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Subject: IETF 70: Call for slots for Vancouver X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Hi, We have been tentatively granted a 1 hour meeting slot on: TUESDAY, December 4, 2007 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III Salon 3 INT l2vpn Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG One thing we are going to cover is a charter update. If there are other items you wish to discuss, please mail Vach or I. Thanks! -shane From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 30 08:32:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImqD7-00062J-6i; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:28:45 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImqD5-0005yf-Ju for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:28:43 -0400 Received: from ripley.ciena.com ([63.118.34.24]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImqD1-00013n-6m for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:28:39 -0400 Received: from mdmail4.ciena.com (HELO mdmxm02.ciena.com) ([63.118.39.27]) by ripley.ciena.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2007 08:28:39 -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: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:28:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3C13767EA2F93441AFB13A630204F1B29FBA21@mamxm02.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <5CBA32E2-7E6F-404A-8BB1-B7B44F08A2AD@castlepoint.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IETF 70: Call for slots for Vancouver Thread-Index: AcgaphfQSccn3SR9RiqOm9q3aN9AnAAShsqQ From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "Shane Amante" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2007 12:28:38.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[6616E9B0:01C81AF0] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: Subject: RE: IETF 70: Call for slots for Vancouver X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Hi Shane, what is on the deck for charter update? /himanshu > -----Original Message----- > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 11:19 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: IETF 70: Call for slots for Vancouver >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We have been tentatively granted a 1 hour meeting slot on: > TUESDAY, December 4, 2007 > 1740-1840 Afternoon Session III > Salon 3 INT l2vpn Layer 2 Virtual Private =20 > Networks WG >=20 > One thing we are going to cover is a charter update. If there are =20 > other items you wish to discuss, please mail Vach or I. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > -shane >=20