Subject: RE: Discussing additional milestones that could be adopted by the WG?

From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H (ATTLABS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:59:28 -0400

Ben,

> The two proposed milestones were:
> Sep-11	Submit specification of using Bi-directional P-tunnels
for
> MVPN to IESG as PS.
> Nov-11	Submit specification for using PE-PE PIM in the absence
of
> MI-PMSI to IESG as PS.
> 
> Before we have a discussion on the details of their individual merits
I
> would like to ask if anyone feels strongly that they *should* be
> included in the WG's milestones 

Yes, they should be included.

> Including the reasoning why you feel strongly that they should be
> included 

-  Bidirectional P-tunnels

Using MP2MP is a recommended option for C-Bidir
(draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06). So, work on bidirectional
P-tunnels should be part of the milestones.
 
-  PE-PE PIM signaling without MI-PMSI 

This is needed for SPs that want to transition to MPLS multicast/ingress
replication transport or want to scale multicast core transport without
transitioning to BGP-multicast routing. This paradigm also introduces
several valuable PIM optimizations.

> When responding please consider what I have said before, i.e. that a
> piece of work not being in the milestones does not prevent individuals
> or the WG from working on it, or it being accepted as a WG document at
> some point, etc. The milestones are there to guide our work and serve
> as a loose prioritization of tasks that consume WG & WG Chair time but
> should not be used as a barrier to doing work that the WG feels is
> important.

I think that the work items that are worthwhile to develop should be
also the milestones. Separating the two might introduce confusion.
The SPs have enough experience in MVPN technology to be able to tell
which paradigms are worth pursuing.

Maria