Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: Internet transparency

Eric,

> However, in the case of 2547bis, the "multiple providers" are expected to be
> a small number of closely  cooperating service providers.  There really isn't
> much provision for  running the VPNs over the public  Internet.  It might be
> good to have this "public  Internet transparency" excluded from the charter.
> Presumably, that would prevent the IESG from later rejecting the specs on
> the grounds that they don't provide public Internet transparency. 

Is this specific to the case of 2547 only or generic to all L3
mechanisms? If the former, I would rather not like the charter to say
so. As for rejecting the 2547-related specs, I think it would be very
useful if the applicability statement highlighted the detail about
cooperating SPs and state that Internet transparency is a non-goal.

> With regard  to the specific  list of documents,  a notable omission  is the
> specification for doing  2547bis when OSPF is the  PE/CE protocol.  Now that
> a proper division of responsibilities has  been agreed with the OSPF WG, I'd
> like to see this document added to the list. 

Noted.

> One more comment: I believe that the month following Dec 2003 is Jan 2004.

We definitely need a consensus on this.

Alex