Subject: mvpn next steps

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:56:21 +0100

Hi chairs, working group,

I would like the WG to be asked for adoption of
draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03, as proposed by the chairs
during the meeting after a favorable show of hands.  

Since the situation has to evolve whatever answer is given on the list,
it seems wise to provide only one alternative answer which would be the
choice of a profile-based approach.

Besides, the working group should also be asked if progressing
draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast-vpn and draft-..-mcast-vpn-bgp to the IESG can
be done without the WG having adopted a document describing how
interoperability can happen.

( The reason is simple: the risk seems high to have the IESG spot
draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast-vpn (on which depends draft-..-mcast-vpn-bgp)
lacks the key wording to ensure interoperability and be reluctant to
progress is on "standard track", which would put us back to our starting
point.  That deserve gathering the working group opinion before such a
decision is taken. )

Summary
- question 1 with two choices : 
   (a) adopt draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03
   (b) adopt a profile-based approach
- question 2 (yes/no) : should the working group progress
draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast-vpn and draft-..-mcast-vpn-bgp to the IESG
without the WG having adopted a document describing how interoperability
can happen ? (yes or no)

Thank you,

-Thomas

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:17:31 +0100

In the past I have sensed a mis-perception with draft-morin, so I want to
clarify some things from my point of view.

Essentially we have two choices (as in life there are always more choices
but these two seem to be the ones folks are discussing in the corridors)

1) Progress a mandatory "implementation draft(s)" of which draft-morin could
make a good basis to start which stipulates what every implementation MUST
support (note this may not always be restricted to a single mechanism for a
function and could for e.g. mandate a PIM and BGP implementation).

2) Progress a set of optional profiles.  Within each profile it is
stipulated what MUST be implemented to conform to that profile but the
profiles themselves are optional to implement.

My strong preference is for (1).

Ben