That sounds good to me. I would really like to see the composite link work advance - preferably by or just after the next IETF. I encourage everyone to read and comment on it; I will do so as well and send comments separately.
Alia On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
