Hi,
We asked for opinions on three I-Ds.
The chairs believe we have consensus to adopt draft-fedyk-l1vpn-basic-mode
and draft-ouldbrahim-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery.
Would the authors please go ahead and submit draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode and
draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery. Note that the only changes you should
make are:
- filename
- dates
- references if they need to be updated
- any boilerplate of format needed to pass idnits
There is not clear consensus yet about
draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery. Although the chairs think that this
draft is very readable and clear, it has changed quite a lot since the
previous revision, and it was clear that some people had not yet had a
chance to read and digest. Additionally, the chairs polled the OSPF WG
chairs who have some concerns that they would like to discuss.
We note that the meeting in Dallas was clear that theri should not be a
beauty contest between these I-Ds, but that both should be allowed to
proceed leaving the choice to develop as the I-Ds proceed based on
implementaiton and deployment.
What we propose for this draft is as follows:
- people need to read the latest version
- the chairs will summarise the issues that have been raised (including from
the OSPF chairs)
- we can discuss the issues on the list
We will aim to make a more firm decision over the next 6 to 8 weeks so that
we know where we stand before Montreal.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
