Subject: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:14:32 -0400

This morning I had a chat with Sami about the draft, to follow up on my
comments in the l2vpn meeting. One thing we discussed is the commonality
between this draft and RFC 6624. That commonality makes it easier for me to
support this draft, but I would suggest that a reference to that RFC be
added to the draft. In addition, that RFC is Informational, and this draft
should be as well, since it's just discussing a particular application for
the Standards Track EVPN draft.

Talking about RFC 6624, that RFC has the following statement:

"...it is recommended that devices implementing the solution described in
this document also implement the approach in [RFC4447] and [RFC6074]."

This draft should also have a similar statement.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: "Bitar, Nabil N" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:38:30 -0400

Thanks Andy. Noted. 

Thanks,
Nabil
________________________________________
From: L2vpn [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis [[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Some comments on draft-boutros-l2vpn-evpn-vpws-04

This morning I had a chat with Sami about the draft, to follow up on my comments in the l2vpn meeting. One thing we discussed is the commonality between this draft and RFC 6624. That commonality makes it easier for me to support this draft, but I would suggest that a reference to that RFC be added to the draft. In addition, that RFC is Informational, and this draft should be as well, since it's just discussing a particular application for the Standards Track EVPN draft.

"...it is recommended that devices implementing the solution described in this document also implement the approach in [RFC4447] and [RFC6074]."

Thanks,
Andy