Subject: [PWE3] L2VPN minutes - Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in VPLS

From: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:30:22 +1000

Hello L2VPN & PWE3 chairs and ADs,

Taken from the l2vpn minutes
"Shane: dangerous for l2vpn to take up a wg item for which we do not have
consensus for a feasible underlying technology solution(s)
PWE3 and L2VPN and ADs need to get together to discuss path forward."

Just following up on my previous email, has any discussion happened?
Thanks,
Simon

2010/8/9 Simon Delord <[email-masked]>

> Hi Shane,
>
> Just following up on the previous email.
> Did any discussion take place during IETF78 between the l2vpn & pwe3 chairs
> and the area-directors
> and has any decision been made?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Simon
>
> 2010/7/26 Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
>
>  Simon,
>>
>>  On Jul 26, 2010, at 03:06 GMT+02:00, Simon Delord wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>> Taken from Shane's previous email:
>> "- Furthermore, the PWE3 WG owns the definition of the Control Word and
>> they would have to agree to it's use for filtering /before/ L2VPN could take
>> on any work related to E-TREE, particularly if there was a contingency on
>> using CW filtering as a solution."
>>
>> The minutes in the PWE3 WG for IETF77 show that during presentation of
>> draft-delord-pwe3-cw-bit-etree-02.txt
>> "Matthew: would like to see what L2VPN does first then deal with
>> solutions"
>> Does anyone have an idea on how to make progress on this situation ?
>>
>>
>> It seems like the PWE3 & L2VPN co-chairs will have to get together with
>> our co-AD's and discuss how to resolve this situation.  I'll report back to
>> the list after we've had a proper chance to discuss.
>>
>> -shane
>>
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>