Subject: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:59:00 +0000

This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;)

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.

Nabil & Giles

---

From: "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:16:52 -0500

I support publication.  This methodology is attractive due to the
isolation of the AC, potential isolation and/or mitigation loop on the AC,
improved SP visibility into customer traffic benefiting coop
troubleshooting and support for multicast customer traffic (to not be
treated as broadcast).

I do, however, see some overlap with EVPN, and would like to hear how the
authors see the relationship between some of the EVPN work and this?

-Josh

On 12/19/12 9:59 AM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for
>publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be
>good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  Well,
>given the season any comments at all would be good ;)
>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:56:30 +0100

I would not support this given E_VPN is a superior solution.

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:12:10 +0000

Dear All,
would publication of the document fall into the following case (http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html):
*       ... work that could be practiced, was developed in the IETF, has been dropped for some reason, but is being published for the record. That's Informational, unless the IESG determines that Historic status is more appropriate.
Support if that is the case and Historic status will be suggested to IESG or, even better, selected by the WG itself.
Otherwise - do not support publication.

        Regards,
                Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Giles Heron
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls

Nabil & Giles

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:00:53 +0000

Support publication as an Informational RFC.

Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Giles
> Heron
> 发送时间: 2012年12月19日 23:59
> 收件人: [email-masked]
> 主题: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls
> 
> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publication as an
> Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good to hear some
> comments over and above the usual "Support!".  Well, given the season any
> comments at all would be good ;)
>

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:22:48 -0800

+1

Sent from my iPad

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:28:01 -0500

Giles,

I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more
appropriate at this point, unless there actually are implementations out
there somewhere.

Cheers,
Andy