Re: Single vs many solution(s)

Loa,

  I think it is indeed the right thing to ask the IESG
  to come up with clear formulation of the concerns.

  Consider me the token holder.
  Thanks.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Tuesday, May 27, 2003, 2:03:42 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Yakov,

> I don't have the power to require that IESG do or don't do anything.
> What I can do is to send a specification to the IESG asking them to
> review it and publish as an RFC, that is what any wg chair can do.

> But I can send an humble request ;)

> IESG,

> the ppvpn wg group has an ID describing a solution for the L2VPN space 
> based
> on MP-BGP as a signaling protocol, and also an ID describing a VPN 
> membership
> discovery mechanism based on BGP.

> We have been informed by our ADs that IESG have concerns relating to the 
> use of
> BGP in this context. To simplify the future work in the wg it would be
> useful to have those concerns documented.

> /Loa

> PS

> Is this "enough"?


> Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>> Loa,
>> 
>> 
>>>Hamid,
>>>
>>>I think that is wishful thinking. I know that there are issues with
>>>using bgp (kkompella) from several ADs including at least Alex.
>> 
>> 
>> Just saying that "there are issues" isn't enough - "the several
>> ADs" who have these issues need to document them, and then discuss
>> it in an open forum (WG mailing list) to see whether these "issues"
>> are of any practical significance.
>> 
>> Yakov.
>> 
>> P.S. So far we've seen Alex raising the issues he has with using BGP,
>> and Pedro addressing them...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>