Subject: [Mavs] Additional comments to the requirements draft

From: Christian Jacquenet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:07:16 +0200

Dear all,

Please find herein another shot of comments to the aforementioned document,
in addition to those provided by Dimitri (Word revision marks and colored
text). In a nutshell:

1. I strongly encourage the co-authorship of this document by one or more SP
representatives.
2. Some of the terminology is rather confusing: e.g. I think the notion of
"MNE operator" is highly arguable, because I don't think there will be such
a meta-organization. Rather, I would replace this notion by "a community of
(VPN) service providers that use and operate the (entwork) resources of a
MNE facility to deploy and exploit a VPN service offering".
3. The "E2E" wording is also confusing in several places of the document:
for example, I don't understand the notion of "E2E service policy". I'd
rather talk about the enforcement of a set of (hopefully) consistent
policies (including but not necessarily limited to) addressing, routing,
QoS, security policies) for the provisioning of an inter-domain VPN service
that will comply with the requirements that may have been negotiated between
a customer and the aforementioned community.

Finally, I can see as per the latest version of the IETF64 agenda that there
won't be a mavs BoF in Vancouver: shall we arrange a "bar BoF" instead,
discuss the charter and agree upon Dallas as the milestone for setting up
the IESG-approved BoF? I'll be in Vancouver from Nov. 5 and leave on Nov.
11.

Cheers,

Christian.
_______________________________________________
Mavs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mavs