Subject: Summarizing my L3VPN WG meeting comments

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:08:31 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Danny and Marshall,

This email summarises the position that I stated in the L3VPN WG meeting.

1. What is the issue?

- draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
- draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp

do not specify a set of MUST, SHOULD, MAY guidelines to build
inter-operable implementations.

2. How to resolve it?

The L3VPN WG must be presented with a set of choices by the chairs with
the goal of moving towards rough consensus based on IETF procedures.

3. What should the WG be asked?

i) We have two choices on the table so far to resolve (1), as stated by
Ron:

"With this in mind I would like to ask the WG chairs for a consensus call
on either (a) accepting  draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations as the
WG, or (b) following the profile approach, as outlined in
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-profiles".

(Note if If (b) is followed there will have to be *at least one more*
profiles document,  namely BGP for both  auto-discovery
and for exchanging MVPN multicast routing information.)

ii) In addition to (i), the WG should also be asked whether
to progress draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast and
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp to IESG immediately,
without waiting for the resolution on (i).

rahul