Subject: L2VPN charter discussed by IESG last week

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:38:27 -0700

Folks-

 I brought the L2VPN charter to the IESG last week.

 Item 6 in the list of tasks the WG is undertaking--

  6. Interworking of IP devices connected to an IP-only L2 VPN using
     dissimilar attachment circuits. This topic will be explored only
     after the basic L2VPN services (VPWS, VPLS, and IP L2VPN) are
     defined.
 
 --caused some concerns within the IESG and it will take some time to
 discuss this subject.

 In the interest of progress, I made a decision to remove this item
 from the charter at this time so it can go to the IETF review stage.
 I will continue the discussion within the IESG with the plan to have
 a decision two weeks from Vienna.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

---

From: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:20:51 -0400

Alex,

>
> > Would that be possible to know what these concerns are? Thanks.
>
> The high-order bit is whether this work belongs within the IETF or
> not. We're talking about details now. More later.
>

I think the charter mentioned the term "Interworking" in
the statement below and that may have caused some misunderstanding.
 
"Interworking of IP devices Interworking of IP devices connected 
to an IP-only L2 VPN using dissimilar attachment circuits." 
 
It should be stressed that this is not l2vpn interworking in a
sense that the wg will not be defining an interworking function
between two dissimilar layer-2 attachment circuits. In fact if it 
is not too late, I suggest to remove bullet 6, and just leave 3) 
which includes already an IP-only communication between point
to point circuits of (dissimilar attachment circuits). Bullet 3)
says:
 
"3. IP-only L2 VPNs--L2 service across an IP and an MPLS-enabled
IP network, allowing standard IP devices to communicate with each
other as if they were connected to a common LAN segment or a point-
to-point circuit."
 
For me this statement is enough...(no need for further clarification).
 
Hamid.