Re: IMPORTANT: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

Hi Thomas, all,

> The chairs themselves seem to agree that there are some 13 documents
> on L3 that are not through the system yet. I'm a bit concerned to hear
> that there has been minimal discussion on L3 topics over the last
> year, given the number of L3 work items that apparently need to get
> completed.
> 
> The above could be read as indicating that the discussion/urgency of
> the L2 work is pushing out or drowning out discussion on L3 topics. If
> that is the case, a separate WG, mailing list, etc., may well help.
> I'm assuming the L3 work is important and should get completed.

I believe that it can also be read as indicating that many feel that
most of the (current) L3VPN work is stable and agreed upon, and doesn't
need more discussion within the WG. As was already hinted previously,
the progress of the L3VPN work has been delayed (for a long time)
because the framework and requirements documents needed to be accepted
first.

I do believe however that several proposed new working items (QoS,
security, management, multicast, etc.) have received little attention
from the WG because of the current L2VPN (VPLS) discussions/urgency. But
as many of these are aimed at both L2 and L3VPNs, and as I don't find
reference to these items in the proposed charters, I understand that the
goal of the proposed split is not to accomodate these.

On one hand, I believe that the idea of two separate WGs is a good one,
but on the other hand, I'm not sure how much it will help now, so far in
the process.

I also personally believe that the PPVPN WG has produced valuable
results, and is making progress on complex topics every day (look at the
current IEEE vs VPLS discussions on this list). And this despite the
fact that the 'market' is not waiting and despite the fact that the
number of interested individuals (from different backgrounds: SPs,
vendors, academic and other standard bodies) is very large.

Jeremy.