Subject: PPVPN L2 space : action plan (check for consensus expressed in SF meeting and other open points)

From: "Marco Carugi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:47:13 +0200

Hello.

As follow up to recent messages on the list about L2 solution drafts, this
is a summary of the various items discussed in SF in the L2 space, including
those where consensus was expressed in the room and has to be checked on
this list, and those where no consensus was expressed or determined in SF
and we require further discussion on the list to determine consensus.   
1.  The L2 requirements draft (product of the L2 design team) requires wider
review by the WG. 
Action plan : a draft update is expected soon (based on some comments by L2
team members). The intention is to submit this draft to the WG review in
around 10-15 days from now (comments on scalability considerations will be
particularly appreciated). 
Target for L2 requirements and L2 framework submission to IESG is May
(current April milestone will not be met). 
2. L2 Solutions Documents 
A. Consensus expressed in SF:
- VPLS  draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls-04.txt : request to make it a WG
doc with strong support in the room.  
A week has been allocated to receive further input (support, objections)
prior to final decision to make this a WG document.

- Radius for PE-Based VPN Discovery : strong interest in the room to
progress this approach.
A new version of the draft has just been published on the mail list, and a
week is also allocated to receive further input (support, objections) prior
to final decision to make this a WG document.
B. Other drafts to be considered for WG document status:
- GVPLS/LPE draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-01.txt : no request to make it a WG
doc in SF, but author has later requested that on the list.
- VPLS draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01: no request to make it a WG doc in SF,
but author has later requested that on the list.
- IPLS draft-shah-ppvpn-ipls-01.txt : no request to make it a WG doc in SF,
but author has later requested that on the list.
For these drafts it is up to the authors to generate enough support to
warrant WG document status. It is also incumbent on list members to offer
their input about these drafts (support, objections) on the list. A one-week
period is allocated for now for this discussion.
Note: ALL other authors claiming their solution draft should be promoted to
WG doc status have to explicitly request this ASAP (early next week) on this
list. 
C. Other issues 
- Reqts compliance section :
To facilitate the WG discussion and future progress in the solution space,
we identified the value of a requirements compliance section in each
solution ID  (claiming to become WG document), indicating how the solution
satisfies reqts expressed in the L2 reqts draft. It is requested that
solution draft authors update ASAP their ID with this reqts compliance
section (and possibly - this is optional - restructuring the document
according to a common template
(draft-carugi-ppvpn-l2solution-doc-guidelines-01.txt)). The requirements
compliance section is not a mandatory requirement to be a WG document, but
will need to be added prior to progress towards a proposed standard or
experimental standard.
- Experimental vs. Standards Track :
The issue was raised in the L2 team (which includes the authors of main
solution drafts), the experimental option having received the preference by
team members, but not unanimously. Different opinions by meeting
participants were registered in SF. A separate thread will be opened up on
the list for continued discussion of these alternatives concerning progress
of L2 solution drafts.

Marco and Rick

---

From: Muneyoshi Suzuki <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:41:08 +0900 (JST)

Marco and Rick,

As I pointed on the list, emulated LAN technology, which consists of VPLS 
forwarders and full mesh pseudo wires with split-horizon forwarding scheme 
and proposed in the L2 VPN framework, has architecture level issues such 
as protection racing, loop, and black hole.

However, it is clear from the discussions on the list, these issues are 
difficult to solve by the PPVPN WG alone, but there is no official liaison 
between the IEEE 802.1 and PPVPN WGs. If we suppose that the issues are 
not problem because the issues will be solved by the 802.1 WG, it should 
be clearly addressed on the official liaison letter between 802.1 and 
PPVPN WGs. Otherwise, the VPLS architecture should be reconsidered.

Again, architecture level error is usually fatal and beyond recall.
Therefore, at this time, I opposite to select any L2 VPN solution 
document to WG item until architecture level issues are solved.

Thanks,

Muneyoshi Suzuki
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.