Re: WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt

hi all,

another last call comment on the 2547bis draft:

the RFC should state clearly if the following situation is the normal 
situation:

 > In a situation where site A belongs to VPN1, site B to VPN2 and site C
 > to VPN1 and VPN2; then sites A,B,C map to 3 different VRFs, and the
 > VRF for C will contain the union of the routings tables of VPN1 and
 > VPN2.

I found some kind of inconsistency (at least unclear) between the 2 
paragraphs quoted below:

[section 3.1. "VRFs and Attachment Circuits"]
    "We allow the case in which a single attachment circuit is associated
    with a set of VRFs, rather than with a single VRF. This can be
    useful if it is desired to divide a single VPN into several "sub-
    VPNs", each with different connectivity restrictions, where some
    characteristic of the customer packets is used to select from among
    the sub-VPNs.  For simplicity though, we will usually speak of an
    attachment circuit as being associated with a single VRF."

[section 3.2. "Associating IP packets with VRF"]:
    "If an attachment circuit leads to a site which is in multiple VPNs,
    the attachment circuit may still associated with a single VRF, in
    which case the VRF will contain routes from the full set of VPNs of
    which the site is a member."


thanks,
yacine