Subject: [PWE3] Draft Charter - opening

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:58:46 +0200

I am going to break my comments up by subject
in order to facilitate discussion.

            Network operators and their subscribers ...

The present versions talks about service providers
and now we have "network operators" (i.e. PTOs)
and "subscribers" (an archaic term from the time
when clients were inextricably tied to a single provider).

Is this progress?

            migrating to a single IP or MPLS based packet
            switched network (PSN)

Why are we keeping up the pretense of IP and MPLS?
The IP part is now handled by the l2tpext unless you are
refering to RFC4023 PWs or TDMoIP's use of UDP ports.
... and BTW, there is a statement about division of labor
with l2vpn, but no similar statement about l2tpext.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:50:39 -0400

> when clients were inextricably tied to a single provider).

"Network operators" is good because "service" means much more than
carrying IP traffic these days, so it's too ambiguous.  If you want to
be completely specific you could say "network transport service
providers".

"Subscribers" is not good because "subscriber" is a business
relationship, not a traffic flow relationship -- the people or
whatever actually using the connections can be different from those
who pay for them.  "User" is better.

> with l2vpn, but no similar statement about l2tpext.

This isn't a statement about the scope of the WG, it's about what
network operators are doing (they are migrating to IP *and/or* MPLS),
so which WG handles what is not an issue (that comes later).

swb

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:44:15 -0600

> when clients were inextricably tied to a single provider).

If that's a good thing, sure :-)

> refering to RFC4023 PWs or TDMoIP's use of UDP ports.

I used Ben's proposed text here, I hope it will suffice.

> with l2vpn, but no similar statement about l2tpext.

I've added L2TPEXT explicitly here as well..

Thanks for the feedback Yaakov!

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:44:19 -0600

> who pay for them.  "User" is better.

"network transport service providers" and "user" it is, assuming
no suitable [tbd] objections.

-danny