RE: Draft charter for L3VPN

Alex,

> 
> Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 3:00:08 PM, Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
> >> Because I wanted to hear opinions on where it should go: L2 or L3,
> > Unfortunately, it's neither L2 or L3, it's L2+L3.
> 
> It's about which WG it would be "hosted" in.
> 
> > I really think 
> > (if wg split happens), that the new re-org needs to leave room
> > for potential l2+l3 work/common mechanisms.
> 
> Noted.
> 

I meant ideally the draft will be hosted in the same WG where
l2+l3 work is captured. To answer your specific question, I don't
have strong opinion although it looks logical to put it with
l2vpn wg (if there is any change, it will be on l2vpn stuff).

> >> and whether it should be in the first set of documents a specific
> >> WG should work on or not.
> > Not sure I understand that part. It is already a working group
> > document. 
> 
> Indeed, and that part is not changed (i.e., we should not revisit
> that decision). It is about when the WG should do the LC and submit
> it to the IESG, i.e. a mere planning issue.
> 

I don't have strong  opinion on that as well. 
The draft is stable in terms of changes (at least for now). 
I will say if it is hosted in l2vpn charter, maybe LC and 
submission can be done while solutions are submitted. If it 
is in l3vpn wg then submission can be done with vr/l3vpn
submission. If I use the dates provided, Dec 03 is 
an example..In fact I see no objection as well if it is 
done before this date.

Hamid.