Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

> 
> This working group is responsible for defining and specifying a
> limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned
> layer-2 virtual private networks (L2VPNs).
> 
> The WG is responsible for standardization of the following solutions:
> 
> 1. Virtual Private LAN Service--L2 service that emulates LAN
>    across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network.
>  
> 2. Virtual Private Wire Service--L2 service that provides L2
>    point-to-point connectivity (e.g. Frame Relay DLCI, ATM VPI/VCI,
>    point-to-point Ethernet) across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network.
> 
> The WG will address intra-AS scenarios only at this point (inter-AS
> considerations will be considered for inclusion in the updated
> charter when the current one is completed.)

I'd like to include an objective that the VPLS services are transparent 
to higher layer protocols (e.g. really emulated a LAN).  Maybe words like...
"
The WG will drive for solutions that are transparent to higher layer 
protocols such as 802.1D bridging and IP.  Optimizations to a basic 
transparent architecture may be developed to foster more efficient 
transport in special cases (such as IP only transport).  The WG will 
cooperate with IEEE 802.1 to ensure proper interworking of VPLS and VPWS 
solutions with traditional bridging networks.
"

>    
> As a general rule, the WG will not create new protocols, but will 
> provide functional requirements for extensions of the existing 
> protocols that will be discussed in the protocol-specific WGs.
> As a specific example, this WG will not define new encapsulation
> mechanism, but will use those defined in the PWE3 WG.
> 
> The WG will work on the following items, adding new work items 
> will require rechartering:
> 
> 1. Discovery of PEs participating in L2 service, and
>    topology of required connectivity
> 
> 2. Signaling of psuedo-wire and service parameters
> 
> 3. Solution documents (providing the framework for a specific
>    solution, should include info on how discovery, signaling,
>    and encaps work together, include security, AS as a separate
>    document,...)

You mention discovery, signaling, and solutions.  Should we mention data 
plane forwarding in #3?

> 
> 4. MIBs
>    
> 5. L2VPN-specific OAM extensions--extensions to existing OAM
>    solutions for VPLS and VPWS. >
> Milestones (optimistic):
> 
> JUL 2003  Submit L2 requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC
> JUL 2003  Submit L2 framework to IESG for publication as Informational RFC
> JUL 2003  Identify VPLS and VPWS solutions for the WG
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPLS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPWS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D on OAM for VPLS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D on OAM for VPWS
> DEC 2003  Submit VPLS solution documents to IESG
> DEC 2003  Submit VPWS solution documents to IESG
> JAN 2004  Submit MIB for VPLS to IESG
> JAN 2004  Submit MIB for VPWS to IESG
> MAR 2004  Submit OAM for VPLS to IESG
> MAR 2004  Submit OAM for VPWS to IESG
> 
>

Seems strange to me that the VPLS solutions come AFTER the MIB and OAM. 
   I would have thought it would go the other way, where we define the 
solution(s) first and the MIB and OAM follow from that.

- Matt