From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 10 15:06:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C5311E8088; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:06:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WekRIr2Fi2kS; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:06:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A2811E8072; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:06:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120110230636.7039.49030.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:06:36 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:06:56 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : OSPFv3 as a PE-CE routing protocol Author(s) : Padma Pillay-Esnault Peter Moyer Jeff Doyle Emre Ertekin Michael Lundberg Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-01-10 Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. Support currently exists for both IPv4 and IPv6 VPNs, however only Open Shortest Path First protocol version 2 (OSPFv2) as PE-CE protocol is specified. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Jan 12 08:16:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD00521F859A; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:16:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCkPRoC4TJeD; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:16:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38D221F85A4; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:16:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Protocol Action: 'OSPFv3 as a PE-CE routing protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt) X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120112161623.25682.75341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:16:23 -0800 Cc: l3vpn chair , l3vpn mailing list , RFC Editor X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:16:24 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'OSPFv3 as a PE-CE routing protocol' (draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-11.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece/ Technical Summary The initial BGP/MPLS IP VPN specification enabled PE routers to learn routes within customer sites through static routing, or through a dynamic routing protocol instantiated on the PE-CE link. Specifically, RFC4364 includes support for dynamic routing protocols such as BGP, RIP, and OSPFv2. The OSPFv2 as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks specification (RFC4577) further updates the operation of OSPFv2 as the PE-CE routing protocol by detailing additional extensions to enable intra-domain routing connectivity between OSPFv2-based customer sites. This document defines the mechanisms required to enable the operation of OSPFv3 as the PE-CE Routing Protocol in BGP MPLS/IP VPNs. In doing so, it reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for IPv6 VPNs defined in RFC4659, and OSPFv2 as the PE-CE routing protocol defined in RFC4577. This document also includes the specifications for maintaining intra-domain routing connectivity between OSPFv3-based customer sites across a SP backbone. Working Group Summary This document is a product of L3VPN WG. The document underwent WG Last Calls in both the L3VPN and OSPF WGs. Document Quality There is at least one known implementation of this protocol. Personnel Ben Niven-Jenkins is the Document Shepherd for this document. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. From marshall.eubanks@gmail.com Sat Jan 21 05:37:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550FB21F8523 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-M3KgLkZmjB for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D191B21F851A for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwc12 with SMTP id wc12so2019825obb.31 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yzInaxwoNVfRxyRGXimw2ECIa4iHboE+XJuVoOevuDo=; b=AXCejKnnFh4Si3Y/lD7Laxyb6hqf7OIjFDagBiyJy2MrWogjIG/vSy1J5W90L2JJPo FV8xNnMv74IyS5YRZsRcAkqAPppKwdLMEUvlB79TlrlivQOK0sTTDVuOcMQbb6u/DZkK /p3uXiXKLt6z0BCeDj9b7uD8VJuW14LKF9eXA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.116.38 with SMTP id jt6mr1576629obb.52.1327153052469; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.79.102 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 05:37:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:37:32 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN From: Marshall Eubanks To: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" , ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:37:33 -0000 Dear WG members; With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of the expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a new working group with a different focus. If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts are - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another WG as individual submissions. We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any insurmountable difficulties with this process. There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG (and of the work) should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the agenda to discuss this at the RTGAREA meeting. If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time to speak up. Regards Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sat Jan 21 07:02:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4F121F8495 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:02:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftt5UswA7UGb for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EE221F8494 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from static-72-71-250-37.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net ([72.71.250.37] helo=[10.110.1.6]) by mail6.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RocS5-0001Yn-MF; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:01:58 +0000 Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-00 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <1BFE7EAB-8CB7-4AC3-87EC-74F3EC54AC15@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:01:54 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6FA52A23-135B-48A0-BA78-4B52E131B26D@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <1BFE7EAB-8CB7-4AC3-87EC-74F3EC54AC15@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: "l3vpn@ietf.org mailing list" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:02:00 -0000 Colleagues, This WG Last Call has now ended and there were no objections to = progressing the document so I will submit a request for publication to = the IESG shortly. Ben =20 On 6 Dec 2011, at 23:54, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Colleagues, >=20 > This e-mail is the start of a 2 week WG Last Call for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-00. >=20 > Please read the draft and provide any comments you may have. >=20 > Feedback should be provided to the mailing list and/or the authors. >=20 > Last Call ends at midnight PST on the 20th December. >=20 > Thanks > Ben From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Jan 21 22:12:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B221F8449 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:12:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HzHbnELHDt+5 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E4921F8448 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q0M6C0Y7013631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:12:00 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.40]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:12:00 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Marshall Eubanks , L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" , "ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk" Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:11:58 +0100 Subject: RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AczYQdilbxwkuLbvQP6ZJoyHUhMMIwAiqPeA Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:12:12 -0000 Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a face2face meet= ing, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is done. -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of M= arshall Eubanks Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Dear WG members; With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of the expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a new working group with a different focus. If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts are - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another WG as individual submissions. We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any insurmountable difficulties with this process. There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG (and of the work) should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the agenda to discuss this at the RTGAREA meeting. If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time to speak up. Regards Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Jan 22 01:59:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2B721F84F5 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:59:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JFhTizlQJ-5 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AA221F84EC for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RouCh-0001OR-PX; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:59:16 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:59:13 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:59:19 -0000 Wim, On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: > Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it = wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for = closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim = to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC = and about to be sent to IESG for publication -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC = on shortly -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another = revision before being ready for WG LC So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems = achievable. I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before = closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly = too. Ben > We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a face2face = meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is done. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Marshall Eubanks > Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 > To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk > Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >=20 > Dear WG members; >=20 > With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that > there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working > group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of = the > expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a > new working group with a different focus. >=20 > If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts = are >=20 > - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >=20 > - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >=20 > - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another > WG as individual submissions. >=20 > We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any > insurmountable difficulties with this process. >=20 > There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another > L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG > (and of the work) > should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the > agenda to discuss this at > the RTGAREA meeting. >=20 > If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time > to speak up. >=20 > Regards > Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Jan 22 05:18:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1524621F84F8 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:18:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4ffu-I5Tud5 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D2D21F84EC for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q0MDIXh2000367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:18:33 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.40]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:18:33 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:18:29 +0100 Subject: RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AczY7IIzn/BcuRyfQFa9+1gCUVJKrQAG8J5A Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51293@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:18:40 -0000 Ben, i just want to ensure we close the work as you pointed out before cons= idering closing the WG -----Original Message----- From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk]=20 Sent: zondag 22 januari 2012 10:59 To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Cc: Marshall Eubanks; L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Wim, On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: > Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it wouldn'= t just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for closure with= in a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim to finish what = we have on our plate first, if possible. Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC and a= bout to be sent to IESG for publication -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC on = shortly -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another revisio= n before being ready for WG LC So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems achievabl= e. I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before closur= e but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly too. Ben > We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a face2face me= eting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is done. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Marshall Eubanks > Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 > To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk > Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >=20 > Dear WG members; >=20 > With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that > there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working > group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of the > expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a > new working group with a different focus. >=20 > If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts ar= e >=20 > - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >=20 > - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >=20 > - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another > WG as individual submissions. >=20 > We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any > insurmountable difficulties with this process. >=20 > There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another > L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG > (and of the work) > should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the > agenda to discuss this at > the RTGAREA meeting. >=20 > If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time > to speak up. >=20 > Regards > Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From mn1921@att.com Sun Jan 22 09:01:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DC921F8445 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:01:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v5NhJNXhchn7 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:01:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8C921F8444 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:01:48 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: mn1921@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1327251707!11869094!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 8255 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2012 17:01:48 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-14.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Jan 2012 17:01:48 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0MH2HNu025982; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:02:17 -0500 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0MH2EKP025968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:02:14 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9b.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.72]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:01:40 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.140]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:01:40 -0500 From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" Subject: RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AQHM2EHa7k8EYPJVdUGejXeUkd/tmpYYPMwAgAA/foCAACHKwA== Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.10.33.24] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:01:50 -0000 Ben, There are also drafts that there are no WG documents, for example: draft-ro= sen-l3vpn-mvpn-segments-02.txt. Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) > Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >=20 > Wim, >=20 > On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >=20 > > Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >=20 > Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >=20 > If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it > wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for > closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim > to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >=20 > Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC > and about to be sent to IESG for publication > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC > on shortly > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another > revision before being ready for WG LC >=20 > So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems > achievable. >=20 > I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before > closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly > too. >=20 > Ben >=20 > > We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a > face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is > done. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks > > Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 > > To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk > > Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN > > > > Dear WG members; > > > > With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that > > there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working > > group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of > the > > expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a > > new working group with a different focus. > > > > If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing > drafts are > > > > - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or > > > > - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or > > > > - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another > > WG as individual submissions. > > > > We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any > > insurmountable difficulties with this process. > > > > There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant > another > > L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG > > (and of the work) > > should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the > > agenda to discuss this at > > the RTGAREA meeting. > > > > If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the > time > > to speak up. > > > > Regards > > Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From thomas.morin@orange.com Mon Jan 23 01:06:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CECD21F8658 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TO0JhxqFggdc for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2AD21F865E for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 31C2BE302C0 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:06:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF65E302B6 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:06:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:06:34 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from 10.193.21.179 ([10.193.21.179]) by ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.53]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:06:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Organization: France Telecom Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:07:08 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AczZrk4STF0SlkVwT12YlSnyswkYLg== References: From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2012 09:06:34.0985 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E679590:01CCD9AE] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:06:37 -0000 SGVsbG8sDQoNCk15IG9waW5pb24gaXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBzaG91bGQga2VlcCB0aGUgV0cgb3BlbiBh dCBsZWFzdCB1bnRpbCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCANCmFjdGl2ZSBkcmFmdHMgYW5kIGFuIG1WUE4gZXh0 cmFuZXQgZHJhZnQsIGFyZSBwdXNoZWQgdG8gSUVTRy4gVGhlIA0KYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIG1lbnRp b25lZCBiZWxvdyBkb24ndCBsb29rIHRvIG1lIGFzIHBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBhcHBlYWxpbmcuDQoN ClRoYW5rcywNCg0KLVRob21hcw0KDQpNYXJzaGFsbCBFdWJhbmtzIDoNCj4gRGVhciBXRyBtZW1i ZXJzOw0KPg0KPiBXaXRoIHRoZSBQYXJpcyBtZWV0aW5nIGNvbWluZyB1cCwgd2UgZmVsdCB0aGF0 IHlvdSBzaG91bGQga25vdyB0aGF0DQo+IHRoZXJlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNlcmlvdXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lv biBvZiBzaHV0dGluZyBkb3duIHRoZSBMM1ZQTiB3b3JraW5nDQo+IGdyb3VwLCBib3RoIGJlY2F1 c2Ugb2YgYSBkZWNsaW5lIG9mIHdvcmsgaW4gdGhlIGdyb3VwLCBhbmQgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUN Cj4gZXhwZWN0ZWQgbmV3IHdvcmsgdG8gY29tZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBEQyBlZmZvcnQgaXMgbGlrZWx5 IHRvIHJlcXVpcmUgYQ0KPiBuZXcgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aXRoIGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZvY3Vz Lg0KPg0KPiBJZiB0aGUgV0cgd2VyZSB0byBiZSB3b3VuZCBkb3duLCB0aGUgYmFzaWMgY2hvaWNl cyBmb3IgZXhpc3RpbmcgZHJhZnRzIGFyZQ0KPg0KPiAtIHRvIGdvIHRvIGxhc3QgY2FsbCB3aXRo IHRoZSBkcmFmdHMgdGhhdCBhcmUgcmVhZHkgZm9yIGl0IG9yDQo+DQo+IC0gdG8gcHV0IG91dHN0 YW5kaW5nIFdHIGRyYWZ0cyBpbnRvIGFub3RoZXIgV0csIHN1Y2ggYXMgTVBMUywgb3INCj4NCj4g LSB0byBoYXZlIHRoZSBBRHMgc3BvbnNvciAib3JwaGFuZWQiIGRyYWZ0cyB0aGF0IGRvbid0IGZp dCBpbiBhbm90aGVyDQo+IFdHIGFzIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgc3VibWlzc2lvbnMuDQo+DQo+IFdlIGhh dmUgcG9sbGVkIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGRyYWZ0IGF1dGhvcnMsIGFuZCBkbyBub3Qgc2VlIGFueQ0K PiBpbnN1cm1vdW50YWJsZSBkaWZmaWN1bHRpZXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHByb2Nlc3MuDQo+DQo+IFRo ZXJlIGRvZXNuJ3QgYXQgcHJlc2VudCBzZWVtIHRvIGJlIGVub3VnaCBidXNpbmVzcyB0byB3YXJy YW50IGFub3RoZXINCj4gTDNWUE4gbWVldGluZyBpbiBQYXJpcy4gSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgZmVlbCB0 aGF0IHRoZSBmdXR1cmUgb2YgdGhlIFdHDQo+IChhbmQgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmspDQo+IHNob3VsZCBi ZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gcGVyc29uLCBzbyB3ZSBwbGFuIHRvIHJlcXVlc3QgdGltZSBvbiB0aGUN Cj4gYWdlbmRhIHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgdGhpcyBhdA0KPiB0aGUgUlRHQVJFQSBtZWV0aW5nLg0KPg0K PiBJZiBhbnlvbmUgZmVlbHMgdGhhdCBjbG9zaW5nIEwzVlBOIHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgbWlzdGFrZSwg bm93IGlzIHRoZSB0aW1lDQo+IHRvIHNwZWFrIHVwLg0KPg0KPiBSZWdhcmRzDQo+IE1hcnNoYWxs IEV1YmFua3MgLyBCZW4gTml2ZW4tSmVua2lucw0K From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Jan 23 12:10:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF7A21F85D2 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:10:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UMCTzrl8Zc6Q for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:10:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB24621F85D0 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpQDr-00027N-KL; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:10:36 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:10:32 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> To: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:10:38 -0000 Maria, On 22 Jan 2012, at 17:01, NAPIERALA, MARIA H wrote: > Ben, >=20 > There are also drafts that there are no WG documents, for example: = draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-segments-02.txt. I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN group = in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention? There's also an underlying question of whether L3VPN (at least in its = current form) is actually providing anything other than document = processing services. IMO the purpose of a WG is to foster technical = debate, reach consensus where there are opposing views and provide = quality technical reviews of documents. Speaking frankly I do not think L3VPN is currently achieving any of = those things as the level of traffic on the mailing list regarding = technical debate or discussing/reviewing documents is practically = non-existent.=20 Therefore I think it could be argued that progressing documents through = L3VPN provides no value versus progressing them through the = AD-sponsored route or through some other appropriate WG. Ben >=20 > Maria >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>=20 >> Wim, >>=20 >> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>=20 >>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>=20 >> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>=20 >> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it >> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for >> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would = aim >> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>=20 >> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC >> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG = LC >> on shortly >> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another >> revision before being ready for WG LC >>=20 >> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >> achievable. >>=20 >> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before >> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively = quickly >> too. >>=20 >> Ben >>=20 >>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work = is >> done. >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>=20 >>> Dear WG members; >>>=20 >>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working >>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because = of >> the >>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >>> new working group with a different focus. >>>=20 >>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >> drafts are >>>=20 >>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>=20 >>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>=20 >>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in = another >>> WG as individual submissions. >>>=20 >>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>=20 >>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >> another >>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >>> (and of the work) >>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>> agenda to discuss this at >>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>=20 >>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the >> time >>> to speak up. >>>=20 >>> Regards >>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >=20 From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Jan 23 12:12:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FA021F86B8 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WKZWbRgVG2-s for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D995321F86B6 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpQFe-0008Fw-1n; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:12:26 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:12:25 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7AEC6B61-0EE1-4618-885C-22F2A6297B3E@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:12:27 -0000 Thomas, On 23 Jan 2012, at 09:07, wrote: > Hello, >=20 > My opinion is that we should keep the WG open at least until the = current=20 > active drafts and an mVPN extranet draft, are pushed to IESG. The=20 > alternatives mentioned below don't look to me as particularly = appealing. Thanks for sharing your views. It would be useful if you could clarify = whether by "current active drafts" you mean current WG drafts or current = WG drafts and individual drafts listed against L3VPN in the datatracker. Thanks Ben >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > -Thomas >=20 > Marshall Eubanks : >> Dear WG members; >>=20 >> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working >> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of = the >> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >> new working group with a different focus. >>=20 >> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing = drafts are >>=20 >> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>=20 >> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>=20 >> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another >> WG as individual submissions. >>=20 >> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>=20 >> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant = another >> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >> (and of the work) >> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >> agenda to discuss this at >> the RTGAREA meeting. >>=20 >> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the = time >> to speak up. >>=20 >> Regards >> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Mon Jan 23 12:54:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D980321F86B8 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blRl4OUKZpmS for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E84321F8687 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.100.68.233] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F1A205D99B; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:54:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51293@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:54:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0CD2A3E9-3296-414A-9AD5-F44E0CEDAF27@lucidvision.com> References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51293@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:54:40 -0000 If there are only a few drafts left, then the other option is to = punt the remaining drafts over to MPLS too. --Tom On Jan 22, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: > Ben, i just want to ensure we close the work as you pointed out before = considering closing the WG >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk]=20 > Sent: zondag 22 januari 2012 10:59 > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Cc: Marshall Eubanks; L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) > Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >=20 > Wim, >=20 > On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >=20 >> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >=20 > Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >=20 > If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it = wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for = closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim = to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >=20 > Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC = and about to be sent to IESG for publication > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG = LC on shortly > -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another = revision before being ready for WG LC >=20 > So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems = achievable. >=20 > I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before = closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly = too. >=20 > Ben >=20 >> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a = face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is = done. >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>=20 >> Dear WG members; >>=20 >> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working >> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of = the >> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >> new working group with a different focus. >>=20 >> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing = drafts are >>=20 >> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>=20 >> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>=20 >> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another >> WG as individual submissions. >>=20 >> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>=20 >> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant = another >> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >> (and of the work) >> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >> agenda to discuss this at >> the RTGAREA meeting. >>=20 >> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the = time >> to speak up. >>=20 >> Regards >> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >=20 >=20 From linda.dunbar@huawei.com Mon Jan 23 13:54:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45DE21F8534 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.584, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLcO+S+R2qMO for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D24121F852B for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ACW21465; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:54:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:52:59 -0800 Received: from DFWEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.100]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:52:56 -0800 From: Linda Dunbar To: Marshall Eubanks , L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" , "ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk" Subject: RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AQHM2EHedQ+ZlP4RYUuPzu++4JB29JYagcNQ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:52:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E168A1@dfweml505-mbx> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.137.188] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:54:18 -0000 Does it mean that VPN4DC discussion which was held in L3VPN WG session at T= aipei will be moved to a new WG? Should L3VPN wait until the new WG is esta= blished?=20 Linda Dunbar > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Marshall Eubanks > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 AM > To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk > Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >=20 > Dear WG members; >=20 > With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that > there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working > group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of > the > expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a > new working group with a different focus. >=20 > If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts > are >=20 > - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >=20 > - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >=20 > - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another > WG as individual submissions. >=20 > We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any > insurmountable difficulties with this process. >=20 > There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another > L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG > (and of the work) > should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the > agenda to discuss this at > the RTGAREA meeting. >=20 > If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time > to speak up. >=20 > Regards > Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From marshall.eubanks@gmail.com Mon Jan 23 13:59:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E1E21F8616 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YlVa1y6S+JpZ for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0C721F85D0 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwc12 with SMTP id wc12so4287879obb.31 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Tp18UbSGmUN3ALAxdNwHgaEQa1/g/cUU8c/0yvDIIrg=; b=B7Q0/Nop1lBv3XEYlUxtuAZa5LnFhIAHjBKDA2LBtGB761ZXgZR4cKRWB3fYYIy4fz 1ShSmq5XVaiChkcbxe/XQqK6HkaSl5tYErQG7yEj6vbfvMM0m9+uCnWPP28LSI1UxhXs 3hc1lDFJHIhAM/kVseyDYCQjXWSNNIxWfDW90= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.54.80 with SMTP id h16mr9405710obp.59.1327355941107; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.79.102 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:59:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E168A1@dfweml505-mbx> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E168A1@dfweml505-mbx> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:59:01 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN From: Marshall Eubanks To: Linda Dunbar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:59:02 -0000 On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Does it mean that VPN4DC discussion which was held in L3VPN WG session at Taipei will be moved to a new WG? Should L3VPN wait until the new WG is established? > That is an entirely separate matter. The VPN4DC discussion was held in L3VPN, by request, partially to see if it should be included inside L3VPN. I think it is fair to say that there is not consensus to do that. Further discussion on this topic is underway in the DC mailing list. Marshall > Linda Dunbar > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Marshall Eubanks >> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 AM >> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >> >> Dear WG members; >> >> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working >> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of >> the >> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >> new working group with a different focus. >> >> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing drafts >> are >> >> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >> >> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >> >> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another >> WG as individual submissions. >> >> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >> >> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant another >> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >> (and of the work) >> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >> agenda to discuss this at >> the RTGAREA meeting. >> >> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the time >> to speak up. >> >> Regards >> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Jan 23 14:00:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F7021F8687 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:00:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.819 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5uLgMyJRfHpg for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403E521F862A for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RpRwC-0006qY-2a; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:00:28 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E168A1@dfweml505-mbx> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:00:25 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7EF491B8-D7B8-418D-AF43-1A31EFCE2778@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E168A1@dfweml505-mbx> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:00:30 -0000 Linda, On 23 Jan 2012, at 21:52, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Does it mean that VPN4DC discussion which was held in L3VPN WG session = at Taipei will be moved to a new WG? VPN4DC discussions should happen on the dc@ietf.org mailing list as per = my e-mail to the L3VPN list on 9th December. =20 > Should L3VPN wait until the new WG is established?=20 Speaking personally, I don't believe closure of L3VPN (if that's what is = decided) should be tied to waiting on the more general Data Center = discussions reaching consensus.=20 Ben >=20 > Linda Dunbar >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >> Of Marshall Eubanks >> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 AM >> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>=20 >> Dear WG members; >>=20 >> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working >> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of >> the >> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >> new working group with a different focus. >>=20 >> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing = drafts >> are >>=20 >> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>=20 >> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>=20 >> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another >> WG as individual submissions. >>=20 >> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>=20 >> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant = another >> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >> (and of the work) >> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >> agenda to discuss this at >> the RTGAREA meeting. >>=20 >> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the = time >> to speak up. >>=20 >> Regards >> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins From ice@cisco.com Tue Jan 24 00:32:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC0821F8475 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:32:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrXURn0I5kG7 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F3B21F8470 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:32:05 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0O8W4Sp013488 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:32:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from ams-iwijnand-8716.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8716.cisco.com [10.55.191.151]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0O8W2WM015194; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:32:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: IJsbrand Wijnands In-Reply-To: <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:32:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:32:09 -0000 Hi Ben, I agree with Wim, Thomas and Maria. Just keep the L3VPN WG active until the WG documents are done and the = individual submissions have been sorted out.=20 > I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN = group in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention? Don't you think it helps to have a focused group to help process it? Thx, Ice. >=20 > Ben >=20 >>=20 >> Maria >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>=20 >>> Wim, >>>=20 >>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>>=20 >>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>>=20 >>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it >>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' = for >>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would = aim >>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>>=20 >>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG = LC >>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG = LC >>> on shortly >>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another >>> revision before being ready for WG LC >>>=20 >>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >>> achievable. >>>=20 >>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before >>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively = quickly >>> too. >>>=20 >>> Ben >>>=20 >>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work = is >>> done. >>>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>=20 >>>> Dear WG members; >>>>=20 >>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that >>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN = working >>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because = of >>> the >>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a >>>> new working group with a different focus. >>>>=20 >>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >>> drafts are >>>>=20 >>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>>=20 >>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>>=20 >>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in = another >>>> WG as individual submissions. >>>>=20 >>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>>=20 >>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >>> another >>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >>>> (and of the work) >>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>>> agenda to discuss this at >>>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>>=20 >>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the >>> time >>>> to speak up. >>>>=20 >>>> Regards >>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >>=20 >=20 >=20 From robert@raszuk.net Tue Jan 24 00:42:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A624A21F85C4 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:42:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LcIF2hJBvxUQ for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F8D21F85A8 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:42:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1497 invoked by uid 399); 24 Jan 2012 08:42:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.1.3?) (207.47.5.130) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2012 08:42:30 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 207.47.5.130 Message-ID: <4F1E6EF7.6020003@raszuk.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:42:31 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:42:32 -0000 Hi Ben, I agree with Wim, Thomas, Maria and Ice. It is clearly wise to address all L3VPN related documents in this working group rather then attempting to prematurely close this working group. And this is not only limited to documents accepted as WG docs, but also to new submission in this space ... all should be worked on here. As a matter of fact extending the L3VPN to also cover data centers tenants isolation IMHO fits very nicely in this working group rather then on some new dc alias. It almost seems like that someone is just pushing to close this WG to make sure existing solutions stay sealed while no other ideas (even if better) have IETF room to evolve and progress to RFCs ;) Best, R. > Hi Ben, > > I agree with Wim, Thomas and Maria. > > Just keep the L3VPN WG active until the WG documents are done and the individual submissions have been sorted out. > >> I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN group in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention? > > Don't you think it helps to have a focused group to help process it? > > Thx, > > Ice. From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Jan 24 01:59:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E6F21F856A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:59:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTO-vSli16gx for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4686321F854E for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=xxx.dhcp.cachelogic.com) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rpd9d-0007H3-Hx; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:59:06 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:59:03 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: IJsbrand Wijnands X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:59:08 -0000 On 24 Jan 2012, at 08:32, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote: > Hi Ben, >=20 > I agree with Wim, Thomas and Maria. >=20 > Just keep the L3VPN WG active until the WG documents are done and the = individual submissions have been sorted out.=20 >=20 >> I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN = group in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention? >=20 > Don't you think it helps to have a focused group to help process it? Yes but one could argue that L3VPN isn't performing that role currently. = For example I know of other WGs that follow a process where at least 5 = people that aren't the authors must review a draft before it is = progressed, if we were to instigate a similar rule in L3VPN I suspect = few, if any, drafts would meet the criteria for progression.=20 IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that help = review, reach consensus and process documents. Ben >=20 > Thx, >=20 > Ice. >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> Ben >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Maria >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >>>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >>>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >>>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>=20 >>>> Wim, >>>>=20 >>>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>>>=20 >>>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>>>=20 >>>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it >>>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' = for >>>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would = aim >>>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>>>=20 >>>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG = LC >>>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a = WG LC >>>> on shortly >>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another >>>> revision before being ready for WG LC >>>>=20 >>>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >>>> achievable. >>>>=20 >>>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced = before >>>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively = quickly >>>> too. >>>>=20 >>>> Ben >>>>=20 >>>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >>>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work = is >>>> done. >>>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dear WG members; >>>>>=20 >>>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know = that >>>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN = working >>>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because = of >>>> the >>>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require = a >>>>> new working group with a different focus. >>>>>=20 >>>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >>>> drafts are >>>>>=20 >>>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>>>=20 >>>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>>>=20 >>>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in = another >>>>> WG as individual submissions. >>>>>=20 >>>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>>>=20 >>>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >>>> another >>>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >>>>> (and of the work) >>>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>>>> agenda to discuss this at >>>>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>>>=20 >>>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the >>>> time >>>>> to speak up. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards >>>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 From ice@cisco.com Tue Jan 24 03:04:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCEA21F8540 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:04:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABIVgsl07q8W for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A64921F853D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:04:45 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OB4iNX002633 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:04:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from ams-iwijnand-8718.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8718.cisco.com [10.55.191.153]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OB4gY7023799; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:04:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: IJsbrand Wijnands In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:04:41 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:04:46 -0000 Ben, > Yes but one could argue that L3VPN isn't performing that role = currently. For example I know of other WGs that follow a process where = at least 5 people that aren't the authors must review a draft before it = is progressed, if we were to instigate a similar rule in L3VPN I suspect = few, if any, drafts would meet the criteria for progression.=20 >=20 > IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that = help review, reach consensus and process documents. And by moving it to a different WG you think it will get better? Maybe there is also a role for the WG chairs to solicit input and help = drive documents through the WG. But I get the impression the chairs are = more interested in killing it. Thx, Ice. >=20 > Ben >=20 >>=20 >> Thx, >>=20 >> Ice. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Ben >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Maria >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >>>>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >>>>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>>>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >>>>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>=20 >>>>> Wim, >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>>>>=20 >>>>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that = it >>>>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' = for >>>>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we = would aim >>>>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG = LC >>>>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a = WG LC >>>>> on shortly >>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs = another >>>>> revision before being ready for WG LC >>>>>=20 >>>>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >>>>> achievable. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced = before >>>>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively = quickly >>>>> too. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Ben >>>>>=20 >>>>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >>>>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the = work is >>>>> done. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>>>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>>>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>>>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Dear WG members; >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know = that >>>>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN = working >>>>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and = because of >>>>> the >>>>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require = a >>>>>> new working group with a different focus. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >>>>> drafts are >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in = another >>>>>> WG as individual submissions. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>>>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >>>>> another >>>>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the = WG >>>>>> (and of the work) >>>>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>>>>> agenda to discuss this at >>>>>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the >>>>> time >>>>>> to speak up. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 From mn1921@att.com Tue Jan 24 05:29:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1253B21F854D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:29:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuqyr98iVs0U for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB9E21F8535 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: mn1921@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1327411748!47160016!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 26102 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2012 13:29:09 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Jan 2012 13:29:09 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ODTbti019140; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:38 -0500 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ODTXcK019104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:33 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9f.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.71]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:28:48 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.140]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9F.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.71]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:28:48 -0500 From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , IJsbrand Wijnands Subject: RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AQHM2EHa7k8EYPJVdUGejXeUkd/tmpYYPMwAgAA/foCAAeli8IABIuuAgAAYUYD//+YCYA== Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:28:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA821DA@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.91.76.245] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:29:10 -0000 Ben, > IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that > help review, reach consensus and process documents. IMHO, I don't think that such a "critical mass" existed before, yet the gro= up was able to progress the documents. Maria =20 From robert@raszuk.net Tue Jan 24 07:04:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B854621F8597 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:04:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRm-pz+cIPcF for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8F621F84D5 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23767 invoked by uid 399); 24 Jan 2012 15:04:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.1.3?) (207.47.5.130) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2012 15:04:09 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 207.47.5.130 Message-ID: <4F1EC867.30703@raszuk.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:04:07 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:12 -0000 Ben, > IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that > help review, reach consensus and process documents. Just looking at number of responses along to this thread seems like a sufficient prove that there are folks interested in this area and in this WG. As mentioned earlier there are also new incoming proposals which either extend existing L3VPN draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system or attempt to solve L3VPN without locking customers to the providers draft-ko-vaas-problem-statement. Both fit very nicely to overall L3VPN WG objective. However indeed they may not fit to BGP_ONLY_L3VPN WG. Regards, R. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 08:29:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35E421F8645; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9S+tt32q70Eb; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D74721F8634; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120124162919.31325.56238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:29:19 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:29:22 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes Author(s) : Eric C. Rosen Yakov Rekhter Ray (Lei) Qiu Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-01-24 In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network. The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN "auto-discovery routes", and specify how to use an auto-discovery route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast flow is being carried in a particular tunnel. However, those specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single tunnel. Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all the provider edge routers of the MVPN. This document eliminates these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in the customer flow identifiers. With wildcard elements, a single auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to all customer flows. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01.txt From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Jan 24 10:51:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2CB1F0C3D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0p4mrnJ2cRc for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E4E1F0C38 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=xxx.dhcp.cachelogic.com) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RplSo-0005gQ-9o for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:51:26 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Fwd: Please publish draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:51:26 +0000 References: To: L3VPN list Message-Id: <3B3CA89C-CC3D-4488-ABD1-45F509A0482D@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:51:28 -0000 FYI. Ben Begin forwarded message: > From: Ben Niven-Jenkins > Date: 24 January 2012 18:51:02 GMT > To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards@tools.ietf.org, = l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01 >=20 > Stewart, >=20 > I've included the document shepherd write up for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01 below. I will be the document = shepherd. >=20 > Thanks > ben >=20 > Stewart, >=20 > I've included the document shepherd write up for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-00 below. I will be the shepherd for = this document. >=20 > Thanks > Ben >=20 >=20 > Intended Status: Proposed Standard >=20 > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the=20 > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this=20 > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?=20 >=20 > Ben Niven-Jenkins is the Document Shepherd for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards. I have personally reviewed the -01 = version of the document and believe that this version is ready for = forwarding to the IESG for publication as a Standards Track RFC. >=20 > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members=20 > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have=20 > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that=20 > have been performed? =20 >=20 > The -00 version of the document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call in = December 2011 and no technical concerns were raised during the Last = Call. >=20 > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document=20 > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,=20 > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with=20 > AAA, internationalization or XML?=20 >=20 > No >=20 > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or=20 > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he=20 > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or=20 > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any=20 > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated=20 > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those=20 > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document=20 > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the=20 > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on=20 > this issue.=20 >=20 > No concerns and no IPR disclosures have been filed. >=20 > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it=20 > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with=20 > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and=20 > agree with it? =20 >=20 > There were no objections during the WG Last Call on the document, and = the document was produced by combining two individual drafts authored by = a good proportion of the active WG participants. >=20 > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme=20= > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in=20 > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It=20 > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is=20 > entered into the ID Tracker.)=20 >=20 > No, not to my knowledge. >=20 > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the=20 > document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist=20= > and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are=20 > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document=20 > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB=20 > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?=20 >=20 > The idnits tool reports no issues. There are no MIB or other elements = in the document that would warrant review. As such, I have no concerns = here. >=20 > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and=20 > informative? Are there normative references to documents that=20 > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear=20 > state? If such normative references exist, what is the=20 > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references=20 > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If=20 > so, list these downward references to support the Area=20 > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].=20 >=20 > The document does not informatively reference any other document and = therefore there is just a Normative References section. All normative = references are either to published RFCs or to Internet-Drafts in the = RFC-Editor's queue. There are no downward references. >=20 >=20 > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA=20 > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body=20 > of the document? If the document specifies protocol=20 > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA=20 > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If=20 > the document creates a new registry, does it define the=20 > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation=20 > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a=20 > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the=20 > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd=20 > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG=20 > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?=20 >=20 > The document contains an IANA Considerations section but contains no = actions on IANA. >=20 > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the=20 > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML=20 > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in=20 > an automated checker?=20 >=20 > No section of this document is written in a formal language. >=20 > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document=20 > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document=20 > Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval=20 > announcement contains the following sections:=20 >=20 > Technical Summary=20 > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract=20 > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be=20 > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract=20 > or introduction.=20 >=20 > In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast = flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network. The = base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN "auto-discovery" = routes, and specify how to use an auto-discovery route to advertise the = fact that an individual customer multicast flow is being carried in a = particular tunnel. >=20 > However, those specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a = single such route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a = single tunnel. Those specifications also do not provide a way to = advertise that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all = customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all = the provider edge routers of the MVPN. >=20 > This document eliminates these restrictions by specifying the use of = "wildcard" elements in the customer flow identifiers. With wildcard = elements, a single auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer = flows, or even to all customer flows. >=20 > Working Group Summary=20 > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For=20 > example, was there controversy about particular points or=20 > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly=20 > rough?=20 >=20 > This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no technical = comments on the document during the WG Last Call, which was completed in = December 2011. >=20 > Document Quality=20 > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? >=20 > I am not aware of any existing implementations but I have not actively = tried to discover if any implementation exist. >=20 > Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan > to implement the specification? >=20 > I do not know.=20 >=20 > Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as > having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in > important changes or a conclusion that the document had no > substantive issues? >=20 > Not to the best of my knowledge. >=20 > If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert > review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a > Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? >=20 > No such review was conducted as it was not considered necessary. From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Jan 24 11:28:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4F711E8088 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:28:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WLJ1T+AyXKZs for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6C711E8072 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=xxx.dhcp.cachelogic.com) by mail6.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rpm2h-0003Y3-5X; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:28:31 +0000 Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:28:28 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: IJsbrand Wijnands X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:28:33 -0000 Ice, On 24 Jan 2012, at 11:04, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote: > Ben, >=20 >> Yes but one could argue that L3VPN isn't performing that role = currently. For example I know of other WGs that follow a process where = at least 5 people that aren't the authors must review a draft before it = is progressed, if we were to instigate a similar rule in L3VPN I suspect = few, if any, drafts would meet the criteria for progression.=20 >>=20 >> IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that = help review, reach consensus and process documents. >=20 > And by moving it to a different WG you think it will get better? I don't know if it will get better but I don't think it will be any = worse. > Maybe there is also a role for the WG chairs to solicit input and help = drive documents through the WG. On one hand that's probably a reasonable criticism of the WG chairs. > But I get the impression the chairs are more interested in killing it. I, personally, have no vested interest in whether L3VPN remains "alive" = or gets "killed" and FWIW it wasn't the WG chairs that initiated the = discussions on whether the WG should remain open, it was our Area = Directors. I do question whether the L3VPN WG is really providing what the = community would generally expect from a WG beyond document processing = services and if it isn't then IMO it's hard to justify keeping the WG = open when there are other valid routes for progressing those documents. Ben >=20 > Thx, >=20 > Ice. >=20 >>=20 >> Ben >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Thx, >>>=20 >>> Ice. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Ben >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Maria >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >>>>>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >>>>>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>>>>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >>>>>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Wim, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that = it >>>>>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' = for >>>>>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we = would aim >>>>>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through = WG LC >>>>>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a = WG LC >>>>>> on shortly >>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs = another >>>>>> revision before being ready for WG LC >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >>>>>> achievable. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced = before >>>>>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively = quickly >>>>>> too. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Ben >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >>>>>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the = work is >>>>>> done. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>>>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>>>>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>>>>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>>>>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Dear WG members; >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know = that >>>>>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN = working >>>>>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and = because of >>>>>> the >>>>>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to = require a >>>>>>> new working group with a different focus. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >>>>>> drafts are >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in = another >>>>>>> WG as individual submissions. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>>>>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >>>>>> another >>>>>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the = WG >>>>>>> (and of the work) >>>>>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>>>>>> agenda to discuss this at >>>>>>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is = the >>>>>> time >>>>>>> to speak up. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 From narten@us.ibm.com Tue Jan 24 18:36:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E95021F856F for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xxugwlKscJQZ for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBF921F856C for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:24 -0700 Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.136) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:22 -0700 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DF61FF0038 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0P2aLjp134356 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:21 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0P2aJDD021802 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:20 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-227-99.mts.ibm.com [9.65.227.99]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q0P2aIpX021782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:19 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q0P2aIMI031897; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:36:19 -0500 Message-Id: <201201250236.q0P2aIMI031897@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: IJsbrand Wijnands Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN In-reply-to: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Comments: In-reply-to IJsbrand Wijnands message dated "Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:32:01 +0100." Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:36:18 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12012502-3352-0000-0000-000002280EB8 Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:36:25 -0000 IJsbrand Wijnands writes: > > I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN > > group in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention? > Don't you think it helps to have a focused group to help process it? Not if the effort is basically out of steam. It's the author's job to get a document finished. If they can't do that, and no one else wants to take over, that's a pretty good indication that a document really isn't important in the overall scheme of things. Most WGs get to a point where they run out of steam. They almost always have a few documents left. But there are two kinds: 1) documents that the WG believes are important, and the ADs/chairs/etc. agree that an effort isn't complete without finishing the documents. 2) documents that have been pushed by a small number of persons and that aren't really all that important. The WG has gone along with the documents (as they are related to the WGs technology), but really doesn't care whether they get finished (i.e., not in the previous category). Documents in category 2 are for the authors to finish up or to just drop. No WG is needed for that. I see two official WG drafts left: > draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community version 00 was published back in October 2008. There was one revision in 2009. One more revision in 2010. There were two revisions in 2011, but looking at the diffs, the only change was an author affiliation. The importance of this document would seem to obvious from the history. draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir: -00 as a WG document appeared in August. Has there been any movement since then? (datatracker doesn't have any history on the predecessor to this document, so I don't know how long it has been around.) In Taipei, this WG only met to discuss VPN4DC. It did not discuss any of its own drafts. Without VPN4DC, the WG presumably wouldn't have met at all. Surely a sign of a WG that isn't really doing anything? This sure smells to me like a textbook end-of-life WG that should be shutdown. The mailing list would of course remain open for closing out any drafts, assuming there really is interest in completing them. Thomas From marshall.eubanks@gmail.com Tue Jan 24 18:36:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E3621F8589 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjj4+UORhCGz for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E9021F8578 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwc12 with SMTP id wc12so6099497obb.31 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gREOLBK+wufP8oMA48Wi56JAk2rI6Y1m+2xOpmDoCTI=; b=Ifq3szBvGrImEdOO4Lf4TiM3SbpMoHxkbdoqOEecoHwp1/9IbUhPBRUVyYqPhG4Xzd xggBz1SXy82uRb3BmD6eJwwKR1uwK1ry67p1GXnO6FqUoAtKgfTzB8bhYWhwwOB+NjnQ gm18epwbMmFrBW2z0lkQ2hq7gMmy+Ygr02lj0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.231.7 with SMTP id tc7mr14025155obc.29.1327458994210; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.79.102 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:36:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671CF51277@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA81894@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com> <1E20A067-9908-41FE-9739-19850A3DCA93@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:36:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN From: Marshall Eubanks To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: L3VPN , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:36:35 -0000 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Ice, > > On 24 Jan 2012, at 11:04, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote: > >> Ben, >> >>> Yes but one could argue that L3VPN isn't performing that role currently= . For example I know of other WGs that follow a process where at least 5 pe= ople that aren't the authors must review a draft before it is progressed, i= f we were to instigate a similar rule in L3VPN I suspect few, if any, draft= s would meet the criteria for progression. >>> >>> IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that hel= p review, reach consensus and process documents. >> >> And by moving it to a different WG you think it will get better? > > > I don't know if it will get better but I don't think it will be any worse= . > > >> Maybe there is also a role for the WG chairs to solicit input and help d= rive documents through the WG. > > On one hand that's probably a reasonable criticism of the WG chairs. > >> But I get the impression the chairs are more interested in killing it. > > > I, personally, have no vested interest in whether L3VPN remains "alive" o= r gets "killed" and FWIW it wasn't the WG chairs that initiated the discuss= ions on whether the WG should remain open, it was our Area Directors. > Indeed it was. Speaking just for myself, I also have no vested interest here. In my opinion, if people want it to continue, they need to speak up, start commenting on drafts, and re-energize the group. Regards Marshall > I do question whether the L3VPN WG is really providing what the community= would generally expect from a WG beyond document processing services and i= f it isn't then IMO it's hard to justify keeping the WG open when there are= other valid routes for progressing those documents. > > > Ben > >> >> Thx, >> >> Ice. >> >>> >>> Ben >>> >>>> >>>> Thx, >>>> >>>> Ice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maria >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf >>>>>>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM >>>>>>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>>>>>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it >>>>>>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' f= or >>>>>>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would= aim >>>>>>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3: >>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG = LC >>>>>>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication >>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a W= G LC >>>>>>> on shortly >>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another >>>>>>> revision before being ready for WG LC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems >>>>>>> achievable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced befor= e >>>>>>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively qui= ckly >>>>>>> too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a >>>>>>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work= is >>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks >>>>>>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38 >>>>>>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk >>>>>>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear WG members; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know tha= t >>>>>>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN worki= ng >>>>>>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because= of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require = a >>>>>>>> new working group with a different focus. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing >>>>>>> drafts are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in anot= her >>>>>>>> WG as individual submissions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any >>>>>>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant >>>>>>> another >>>>>>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG >>>>>>>> (and of the work) >>>>>>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the >>>>>>>> agenda to discuss this at >>>>>>>> the RTGAREA meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> to speak up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > From thomas.morin@orange.com Wed Jan 25 00:34:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECFE21F8699 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:34:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dIkeB-bc2IM for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:34:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E0321F8683 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B7BF65D884D; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:33:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3395D86EC; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:33:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:33:59 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from 10.193.21.179 ([10.193.21.179]) by ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.53]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:33:58 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Organization: France Telecom Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7AEC6B61-0EE1-4618-885C-22F2A6297B3E@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN Thread-Index: AczbPBVjXi7GpK2uTyG4/iBWHfxsLA== References: <7AEC6B61-0EE1-4618-885C-22F2A6297B3E@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2012 08:33:59.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[159F64B0:01CCDB3C] Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:34:01 -0000 SGkgQmVuDQoNCjIwMTItMDEtMjMsIEJlbiBOaXZlbi1KZW5raW5zOg0KPj4gVGhvbWFzOg0KPj4N Cj4+IE15IG9waW5pb24gaXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBzaG91bGQga2VlcCB0aGUgV0cgb3BlbiBhdCBsZWFz dCB1bnRpbCB0aGUgY3VycmVudA0KPj4gYWN0aXZlIGRyYWZ0cyBhbmQgYW4gbVZQTiBleHRyYW5l dCBkcmFmdCwgYXJlIHB1c2hlZCB0byBJRVNHLiBUaGUNCj4+IGFsdGVybmF0aXZlcyBtZW50aW9u ZWQgYmVsb3cgZG9uJ3QgbG9vayB0byBtZSBhcyBwYXJ0aWN1bGFybHkgYXBwZWFsaW5nLg0KPg0K PiBUaGFua3MgZm9yIHNoYXJpbmcgeW91ciB2aWV3cy4gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVsIGlmIHlv dSBjb3VsZA0KPiBjbGFyaWZ5ICB3aGV0aGVyIGJ5ICJjdXJyZW50IGFjdGl2ZSBkcmFmdHMiIHlv dSBtZWFuIGN1cnJlbnQgV0cgZHJhZnRzIG9yIGN1cnJlbnQNCiA+IFdHIGRyYWZ0cyBhbmQgaW5k aXZpZHVhbCBkcmFmdHMgbGlzdGVkIGFnYWluc3QgTDNWUE4gaW4gdGhlDQogPiBkYXRhdHJhY2tl ci4NCg0KU29ycnksIGxldCBtZSBiZSBtb3JlIHByZWNpc2U6IHRoZSBXRyBzaG91bGQgcHJvZ3Jl c3MgKGF0IGxlYXN0KSB0aGUgDQpjdXJyZW50bHkgYWN0aXZlIF9XR18gZHJhZnRzIGFuZCBhIG1l cmdlZCBtVlBOIGV4dHJhbmV0IGRyYWZ0ICh0aGVyZSBpcyANCmFjdGl2ZSB3b3JrIHRoZXJlKSBi ZWZvcmUgd2UgbWF5IGNvbnNpZGVyIGNsb3NpbmcgaXQuDQoNCkFzIGZhciBhcyBpbmRpdmlkdWFs IGRyYWZ0cyBhcmUgY29uY2VybmVkLCBJIHdvdWxkIHNheSB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSANCiJidXNp bmVzcyBhcyB1c3VhbCI6IHJlYWNoaW5nIFdHIGNvbnNlbnN1cywgbWF0Y2hpbmcgdGhlIGN1cnJl bnQgY2hhcnRlciANCm9yIGEgcmV2aXNlZCBvbmUsIGV0Yy4NCg0KLVRob21hcw0KDQoNCg0KPj4g TWFyc2hhbGwgRXViYW5rcyA6DQo+Pj4gRGVhciBXRyBtZW1iZXJzOw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gV2l0aCB0 aGUgUGFyaXMgbWVldGluZyBjb21pbmcgdXAsIHdlIGZlbHQgdGhhdCB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIGtub3cg dGhhdA0KPj4+IHRoZXJlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNlcmlvdXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiBzaHV0dGluZyBk b3duIHRoZSBMM1ZQTiB3b3JraW5nDQo+Pj4gZ3JvdXAsIGJvdGggYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBhIGRlY2xp bmUgb2Ygd29yayBpbiB0aGUgZ3JvdXAsIGFuZCBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIHRoZQ0KPj4+IGV4cGVjdGVk IG5ldyB3b3JrIHRvIGNvbWUgZnJvbSB0aGUgREMgZWZmb3J0IGlzIGxpa2VseSB0byByZXF1aXJl IGENCj4+PiBuZXcgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aXRoIGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZvY3VzLg0KPj4+DQo+ Pj4gSWYgdGhlIFdHIHdlcmUgdG8gYmUgd291bmQgZG93biwgdGhlIGJhc2ljIGNob2ljZXMgZm9y IGV4aXN0aW5nIGRyYWZ0cyBhcmUNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IC0gdG8gZ28gdG8gbGFzdCBjYWxsIHdpdGgg dGhlIGRyYWZ0cyB0aGF0IGFyZSByZWFkeSBmb3IgaXQgb3INCj4+Pg0KPj4+IC0gdG8gcHV0IG91 dHN0YW5kaW5nIFdHIGRyYWZ0cyBpbnRvIGFub3RoZXIgV0csIHN1Y2ggYXMgTVBMUywgb3INCj4+ Pg0KPj4+IC0gdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGUgQURzIHNwb25zb3IgIm9ycGhhbmVkIiBkcmFmdHMgdGhhdCBk b24ndCBmaXQgaW4gYW5vdGhlcg0KPj4+IFdHIGFzIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgc3VibWlzc2lvbnMuDQo+ Pj4NCj4+PiBXZSBoYXZlIHBvbGxlZCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBkcmFmdCBhdXRob3JzLCBhbmQgZG8g bm90IHNlZSBhbnkNCj4+PiBpbnN1cm1vdW50YWJsZSBkaWZmaWN1bHRpZXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHBy b2Nlc3MuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGVyZSBkb2Vzbid0IGF0IHByZXNlbnQgc2VlbSB0byBiZSBlbm91 Z2ggYnVzaW5lc3MgdG8gd2FycmFudCBhbm90aGVyDQo+Pj4gTDNWUE4gbWVldGluZyBpbiBQYXJp cy4gSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgZmVlbCB0aGF0IHRoZSBmdXR1cmUgb2YgdGhlIFdHDQo+Pj4gKGFuZCBv ZiB0aGUgd29yaykNCj4+PiBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGluIHBlcnNvbiwgc28gd2UgcGxh biB0byByZXF1ZXN0IHRpbWUgb24gdGhlDQo+Pj4gYWdlbmRhIHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgdGhpcyBhdA0K Pj4+IHRoZSBSVEdBUkVBIG1lZXRpbmcuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBJZiBhbnlvbmUgZmVlbHMgdGhhdCBj bG9zaW5nIEwzVlBOIHdvdWxkIGJlIGEgbWlzdGFrZSwgbm93IGlzIHRoZSB0aW1lDQo+Pj4gdG8g c3BlYWsgdXAuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBSZWdhcmRzDQo+Pj4gTWFyc2hhbGwgRXViYW5rcyAvIEJlbiBO aXZlbi1KZW5raW5zDQo+DQo= From kreeger@cisco.com Tue Jan 31 10:20:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FA311E80E3 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IQPcxNWQBjgo for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39BF11E8073 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=kreeger@cisco.com; l=4391; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328034021; x=1329243621; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sNKdmyqz/3AlPWFMTR4R+D4osXSwDLgqDpKIryJNrNc=; b=SsNqYFry+4U2ddPAtipmRodWlISDckJVXvQxVT2KEAMB+2ZmHyaf5iNm bgnXWhhAwWNoKg1KAUmH6uPHlKDMOBO+nhN/7EQV+yiy/zeKt93a5iKQU ug8KPcNAU8ebWviC2oZxMRP/3RRvbAsBOuzTIZCNL5qqZ1pKfhcxcQ4yw 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsFAKYwKE+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDgk2kBgGHJmaBBYFyAQEBBAEBAQ8BKjEdAQwNAwECVigIAQEEEwkSB4djmHqBJwGeUYsJMhMBCAUDAwkHAQcHAoNaAgYqIQwBBxIBFYMcBIhAjGCSdQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,597,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217";a="27845555" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2012 18:20:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0VIKI2w004505 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:18 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:18 -0800 Received: from 10.21.66.113 ([10.21.66.113]) by xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:19 -0800 Subject: Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Requirements posted From: Larry Kreeger To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Requirements posted Thread-Index: AczfhwmCNjK0MgCDPkWJDbI3krxH/AAvfNB8 In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3410850019_40295716" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2012 18:20:18.0872 (UTC) FILETIME=[FCB06B80:01CCE044] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:21 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3410850019_40295716 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This needed moderator approval for Bcc...so I am posting it directly now. - Larry ------ Forwarded Message From: Larry Kreeger Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:40:36 -0800 To: Subject: [nvo3] Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Requirements posted To: nvo3 mailing list Bcc: l2vpn, l3vpn, dc, armd, vpn4dc mailing lists Hi everyone, I have recently posted a first draft of the Control Plane requirements for Network Virtualization Overlays. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00.txt This draft is a follow-up to draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01 ) which makes the case for overlay networks in data centers (not restricted to L2 over L3) and the need for control plane solutions. If you have not read draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01, I highly suggest reading it first because the posted control plane reqs document picks up where it left off. Since the posted draft is a followup to draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01 , and there is already an NVO3 mailing list, please join and post any discussion and/or comments to nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 Thank you, Larry Kreeger _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 ------ End of Forwarded Message --B_3410850019_40295716 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Requirements posted</TI= TLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt= '>This needed moderator approval for Bcc...so I am posting it directly now. =  - Larry<BR> <BR> ------ Forwarded Message<BR> <B>From: </B>Larry Kreeger <<a href=3D"kreeger@cisco.com">kreeger@cisco.co= m</a>><BR> <B>Date: </B>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:40:36 -0800<BR> <B>To: </B><<a href=3D"nvo3@ietf.org">nvo3@ietf.org</a>><BR> <B>Subject: </B>[nvo3] Network Virtualization Overlay Control Plane Require= ments posted<BR> <BR> To: nvo3 mailing list<BR> Bcc: l2vpn, l3vpn, dc, armd, vpn4dc mailing lists<BR> <BR> Hi everyone,<BR> <BR> I have recently posted a first draft of the Control Plane requirements for = Network Virtualization Overlays.  <BR> <BR> <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00.txt">http:= //www.ietf.org/id/draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-00.txt</a><BR> <BR> This draft is a follow-up to draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01= ( <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-sta= tement-01">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-stat= ement-01</a> ) which makes the case for overlay networks in data centers (no= t restricted to L2 over L3) and the need for control plane solutions.<BR> <BR> If you have not read draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01, I high= ly suggest reading it first because the posted control plane reqs document p= icks up where it left off.<BR> <BR> Since the posted draft is a followup to draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-s= tatement-01 , and there is already an NVO3 mailing list, please join and pos= t any discussion and/or comments to <a href=3D"nvo3@ietf.org">nvo3@ietf.org</a= ><BR> <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3">https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/nvo3</a><BR> <BR> Thank you,<BR> Larry Kreeger<BR> <HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FA= CE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>___________= ____________________________________<BR> nvo3 mailing list<BR> <a href=3D"nvo3@ietf.org">nvo3@ietf.org</a><BR> <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3">https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/nvo3</a><BR> <BR> ------ End of Forwarded Message<BR> </SPAN></FONT></FONT> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3410850019_40295716--