Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: protocol-specific work

Hamid,

> If I take the example of LDP extensions proposals in l2vpn
> space. Should both MPLS and PPVPN WGs agree to the changes before 
> accepting the drafts? or should MPLS, PWE3, and PPVPN WGs all 
> agree to the changes (for example if the changes modify PWE3 
> protocols/mechanisms and they add as well new TLVs to LDP 
> (not related to PWE3's work/charter))? 

We would sit down with WG chairs of PPVPN, MPLS, and PWE3 and
discuss the matter. My goal would be to limit the number of
WGs to 2 (PPVPN included), more would be much harder.

> Wouldn't that cause more delays for most l2vpn work?

I don't think so, because we need this sort of reviews anyways.

> The other question I have is if  after the draft was accepted
> in all the appropriate WGs, and later on additional extensions 
> are proposed. Should we redo the same process and go to all 
> related protocol-specific WGs to get a new approval?

Hard to say in general. If changes are substential, consensus
verification might be warranted, otherwise less formal discussions
would suffice. This sort of details are usually left to the WG chairs
and ADs.

Alex