In message <[email protected]> IETF Secretariat writes: > The following draft will expire soon: > > Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement > Title: Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link > State: I-D Exists > Expires: 2013-02-13 (in 1 week, 1 day)
Changes so far since 08 are just Andy Malis contact info. There is one thing I would like to change that I have mentioned before. OLD: 2. Assumptions - The services supported include L3VPN RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4797 - [RFC4797]L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] (VPWS, VPLS (RFC 4761 [RFC4761], - RFC 4762 [RFC4762]) and VPMS VPMS Framework - [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]), Internet traffic encapsulated by at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and dynamically signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036]) - or MPLS-TP LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and pseudowires (RFC 3985 - [RFC3985]). The MPLS LSPs supporting these services may be point-to- point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-multipoint. NEW: 2. Assumptions + The services supported include pseudowire based services [RFC3985], + including VPN services, Internet traffic encapsulated by at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and dynamically signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036]) + or MPLS-TP LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]). The MPLS LSPs supporting these + services may be point-to- point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-multipoint. The removal of the reference to I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements eliminates an unnecessary barrier to advancement. There is no need to enumerate all of the types of VPN services. Note that the change is a move of pseudowires from last to first, and changing the the pseudowires plus the list of VPN services to "pseudowire based services [RFC3985], including VPN services". If this is OK with co-authors and the WG, I will make this change and submit. Curtis _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
