Andy, You are right! It makes sense to have it as a WG doc.
This draft really solves a real and significant problem, and it is perfectly in line with the current L3VPN framework. On the other hand, it may not be applicable to other scenarios as argued by other folks in this list, but which draft has solved all the problems cleanly once and for all? Having said that, I believe it is beneficial to both vendors and operators for WG to document this approach with explicit clarifications on its applicability. And therefore I am in favor of its WG adoption. Regards, Richard -----Original Message----- From: L3VPN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:55 AM To: Thomas Nadeau Cc: Thomas Morin; [email protected]; L3VPN; Robert Raszuk Subject: Re: Poll for adoption: draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet Tom, > Documentation is fine, but if it comes from a WG isn't it then an > endorsed approach unless some language is explicitly added to the draft? Remember, this poll is for WG adoption, not publication. Once the draft has been adopted by the WG, the WG can then add whatever caveat language it wishes to the draft so that it's very clear that this approach has limitations (already in the last paragraph of section 1 and all over section 4), the purpose of the draft is to document a particular usage of the existing L3VPN protocol set, and that there are other standards-based approaches that are/will be standardized by the WG. So I'm in favor of WG adoption, so that the WG can make sure that these caveats are clear in the informational draft. Cheers, Andy
