Subject: CL Requirements - dependencies and minor edits

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:07:16 -0400

Regarding: CL Requirements draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-05

We need to remove the following dependencies for CL Requirements to
advance:

  fat-pw draft - redundant since RFC is also cited.

  draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements (expired)
  Framework and Requirements for
  Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)

I don't see any reason to cite VPMS since this work is so early and
the draft has expired.  VPMS also brings in requirements in other WGs
in that VPMS cites many other work-in-progress drafts, some expired.

The reference to VPMS is in this paragraph (in the XML version):

    <section anchor="assumptions" title="Assumptions">
      <t>
        The services supported include L3VPN <xref
        target="RFC4364">RFC 4364</xref>, <xref target="RFC4797">RFC
        4797</xref>L2VPN <xref target="RFC4664">RFC 4664</xref> (VPWS,
        VPLS (<xref target="RFC4761">RFC 4761</xref>, <xref
        target="RFC4762">RFC 4762</xref>) and VPMS <xref
        target="I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements">VPMS
        Framework</xref>), Internet traffic encapsulated by at least
        one MPLS label, and dynamically signaled MPLS or MPLS-TP LSPs
        and pseudowires. The MPLS LSPs supporting these services may
        be pt-pt, pt-mpt, or mpt-mpt.
      </t>
  <!--  Tony Li Comment: Need many references here. Lucy provided
  ones for services, do we need ones for signaled MPLS and MPLS-TP?-->

We never really did anything about Tony's comment about citing
signaled MPLS (RFC3209) and MPLS-TP (requirements and/or framework).
Maybe we should also cite PW requirements and/or framework in this
paragraph.  This is really a candidate to be converted to a list.

I suggest we just delete this:

    <section anchor="network-operator-practices"
             title="Existing Network Operator Practices and Protocol Usage">

      <t>
        The network operator practices appendix has been moved to a
        separate document.  When that document has an XML I-D tag the
        references to this appendix will be changed to that document
        and this appendix will be deleted.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="multipath-bcp"
             title="Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques">

      <t>
        The multipath standards and techniques appendix has been moved
        to a separate document.  When that document has an XML I-D tag
        the references to this appendix will be changed to that
        document and this appendix will be deleted.
      </t>

    </section>

It would be better to delete this if we don't get CL Use Cases added
as a WG Item at or shortly after IETF 83.  If CL Use Cases is added as
a WG item, then we can cite it and understand that we have created a
dependency by citing it.  That's OK if they advance together.

There are also quite a few small XML comments that reflect mostly
co-author discussion related to changes to earlier versions.  I looked
over the XML version and read them, just to make sure we didn't drop
any open discussion.  In the next iteration I'm just going to remove
those XML comments if there is no followup.

Curtis