Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 16:54:15 +0200

Hi Thomas, all,

> The chairs themselves seem to agree that there are some 13 documents
> on L3 that are not through the system yet. I'm a bit concerned to hear
> that there has been minimal discussion on L3 topics over the last
> year, given the number of L3 work items that apparently need to get
> completed.
> 
> The above could be read as indicating that the discussion/urgency of
> the L2 work is pushing out or drowning out discussion on L3 topics. If
> that is the case, a separate WG, mailing list, etc., may well help.
> I'm assuming the L3 work is important and should get completed.

I believe that it can also be read as indicating that many feel that
most of the (current) L3VPN work is stable and agreed upon, and doesn't
need more discussion within the WG. As was already hinted previously,
the progress of the L3VPN work has been delayed (for a long time)
because the framework and requirements documents needed to be accepted
first.

I do believe however that several proposed new working items (QoS,
security, management, multicast, etc.) have received little attention
from the WG because of the current L2VPN (VPLS) discussions/urgency. But
as many of these are aimed at both L2 and L3VPNs, and as I don't find
reference to these items in the proposed charters, I understand that the
goal of the proposed split is not to accomodate these.

On one hand, I believe that the idea of two separate WGs is a good one,
but on the other hand, I'm not sure how much it will help now, so far in
the process.

I also personally believe that the PPVPN WG has produced valuable
results, and is making progress on complex topics every day (look at the
current IEEE vs VPLS discussions on this list). And this despite the
fact that the 'market' is not waiting and despite the fact that the
number of interested individuals (from different backgrounds: SPs,
vendors, academic and other standard bodies) is very large.

Jeremy.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:00:24 -0700

Jeremy,

Thanks for your message, please see my comments inline below.

> need more discussion within the WG.

I'd like to make a particular comment on those documents considered
"stable" and "done". Very often it seems that once the active
discussion in the WG is settled, this is it, the document is ready to
fly and not much attention is needed. My experience as an AD and an
IESG member is quite different. Quite often considerable issues are
found during the AD-review and IESG-review processes. I am not talking
about fundamental disagreements like whether MPLS is good or evil, but
about plain technical issues, security aspects, etc. These are parts
of the path of a document through the IETF process and often require
the same level of attention and focus of the WG as during the first
(intra-WG) phase of it. So, my point here is that we should not
underestimate the amount of work that is left for the existing L3
documents.

> As was already hinted previously, the progress of the L3VPN work has
> been delayed (for a long time) because the framework and
> requirements documents needed to be accepted first.

This sounds like the delays for those docs have been primarily on the
IESG side. I think it would be interesting to take a look at the logs
in the ID tracker to see where exactly the delays were.

As a data point, I can tell you that the way of a document within the
IESG is time-bound, because of the way the IESG as a body operates.
Most of the delays I see in reality are during either the AD-review
process, or when input from the IESG needs to be addressed.

> goal of the proposed split is not to accomodate these.

Could you send the draft names, pls?

> vendors, academic and other standard bodies) is very large.

Noted.

Thanks.

Alex

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:52:14 +0200

Hi Alex,

> underestimate the amount of work that is left for the existing L3

I agree with this issue. My fear in fact is that the problem there is
having "the WG" review a work item that is perceived as 'stable' or
non-controversial or should I say 'not hot', and I fear that often this
is ortoghonal to whether the WG has other work on its plate or not.
Other WGs also struggle with this problem and have even proposed to
nominate a 'team of experts' that somehow devotes itself to review WG
docs. In many situations, when a WG considers a doc as being 'stable',
the WG remains silent and the necessary 'plain technical issues' are
discussed between the authors and the ADs... But I don't have a solution
for this problem either.

> in the ID tracker to see where exactly the delays were.

It was not my intention at all to say that the delays were on the IESG
side. I just pointed out that the 'next steps' for the other L3 work
were delayed because the framework and requirements work was not
finalised. Who is responsible for the delays is a different question
(that I'm not interested in answering ;-). We can just say that
finalising this fw and req work is a task of the WG, and sending good
documents to the IESG is a task of the WG.

> Could you send the draft names, pls?

Note that I'm not implying that they should be in the first charters. I
understand your 'basic things first' reasoning. Just wanted to say that
they've had little attention. A few examples:

- draft-ietf-ppvpn-bgp-ipv6-vpn
- draft-ooms-ppvpn-mcast-overview (applies to L2 and L3, expired)
- draft-chiussi-ppvpn-qos-framework (L2 and L3) and
draft-declercq-ppvpn-l3vpn-qos (L3)
- draft-raggarwa-ppvpn-tunnel-encap-sig-00.txt (applies to L2 and L3)
- draft-yacine-ppvpn-mgt-frwk-00.txt

Thanks,
Jeremy.