RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

"Rick Wilder" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ppvpn
Message-ID <6B25E083A064374CA3D2FAB305CFAF7A03C483@m-va-bsod03.add0.masergy.com>
Agreed, Loa.

Here are the questions/requests-for-clarification that came up. 

    a) how do the discovery and signaling parts of the document
       relate to those described in the other solutions documents and
which
       of them are suggested to be mandatory to implement

    b) what is the status of the MAC-in-MAC encapsulation work in IEEE?

    c) for the case where the U-PE network is a completely ethernet
       switched network, and encapsulation like MAC-in-MAC is used,
       what part of the architecture belongs to the IETF?

    c) definition of M2P PWs is outside the scope of this WG and
       probably should go to PWE3

    d) how does the definition of semantics of the PW CW given
       in the document relate to those defined in the PWE3 WG?

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:08 PM
To: Hamid Ould-Brahim
Cc: Rick Wilder; [email protected]
Subject: Re: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Rick,

the question from Hamid is what I should call "loaded". The real issue
here is (evn if you felt you had the wg support from the mailing list
at the time, which I don't know), that the issues the AD / wg chair
discussion should be made available to the list/wg.

Review results may change how you feel about making things wg doc
or not, even if they come form ADs :)

Mailing list discussion of those review results may lift or confirm
those conserns.

/Loa

Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
> Rick,
> 
>  >
>  > - GVPLS/LPE draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-01.txt : This draft is
>  > not made a WG document at this time. Several questions have
>  > come up regarding this document during discussions between
>  > the ADs and WG chairs. In order to make an informed decision,
>  > these questions will be posted shortly to begin a discussion.
>  >
> 
> In your opinion as ppvpn chair was there consensus on the mailing
> list that this draft should advance to WG doc status?
> 
> Hamid.
> 


-- 
/Loa

mobile + 46 739 81 21 64
email: [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.