RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Vach,

A comment on vpn-id/martini...

> Vach>> naming the PWs, not in naming the VPN ID.  The issue 
> of using a globally
> unique name for the VPLS
> Vach>> has been discussed.  In an attempt to keep the 
> signaling compatible with
> draft-martini, we agreed
> Vach>> on using a VCID.  

I think in the pw control draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-02.txt),
Eric's signaling extensions have been added that can
accommodate as well a global unique id. Why not use
the control draft extensions.


>However, there was an intent all 
> along to somehow make
> that identifier a
> Vach>> globally unique.  Suggestions were made such as adding 
> a VPN ID in the
> optional parameters field,
> Vach>> etc.  My last proposal was to have a bona fide VPN ID 
> TLV in the FEC.
> 

Yes. But that is not defined in pwe control draft and if added
it looks redundant to Eric's additions. I requested before
clarifications on the use of VPN-ID TLV (which was left
unanswered btw - see the archive)
 
http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0305&L=ppvpn&T=0&O=
A&P=980.

I don't see why we still didn't resolve that problem.

Why not just adopt the pwe3 control draft's Generalized ID
FEC element instead of defining another VPN-ID TLV
(which I assume if done needs to be captured in the same
draft). 

Is there any reason why not?

Hamid.