Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 12:43:45 -0400

> Your question on whether the WG should accept the spec that includes
> extending UDP-based S-PMSI signaling to other types of P-tunnels
> is nothing more than trying to revisit an issue on which the WG
> reached consensus.

This particular issue has not been discussed explicitly, and the statement
from "considerations" section 3.2 is a fairly weak "the authors do not
recommend extending".  So I think it's perfectly fair to consider this on
the merits.  Especially since there are a couple of new issues to be taken
into account, i.e. the IESG demand for the v6 extension and the implications
on migration to MPLS P-tunnels.  Neither of these issues has been discussed
previously.

> In order to make forward progress

In order to make forward progress we should focus more energy on getting
things done and less energy on preventing things from getting done!

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:05:13 +0100

Colleagues,

>From the responses to this poll we do not have consensus to adopt the entire
of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document.

However, we do have consensus to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00
provided section 3.1 is removed.

Can the authors remove section 3.1 from
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 and republish as
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01. Can the authors then publish
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-01 as
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00

I know this is an extra step than normal but I would like the WG -00 draft
to be identical to the individual draft that is adopted (i.e. The draft
without section 3.1).

If the authors of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 would like to
continue to try to progress section 3.1 then can they please plublish the
content of that section in a separate draft and bring it to the mailing list
for discussion.

Thanks
Ben

On 25/04/2010 17:00, "Benjamin Niven-Jenkins"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> This e-mail is to start a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt
> draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document.
> 
> As there was some discussion in Anaheim on section 3.1 of the draft, we will
> follow Eric's suggestion in his mail of 16th April (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html).
> 
> Therefore please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this
> message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the following three
> options:
> 
> 1) Yes/Support for the entire of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be
> adopted as a L3VPN WG document.
> 
> 2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be adopted as a
> WG document provided section 3.1 is removed.
> 
> 3) No/Do not support draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 being adopted as
> a WG document at all.
> 
> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.
> 
> Ben
>