RE: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l3vpn-bounces@... [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@...] On Behalf
> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM
> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN
>
> Wim,
>
> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:
>
> > Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished?
>
> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-)
>
> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it
> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for
> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim
> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible.
>
> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3:
> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC
> and about to be sent to IESG for publication
> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC
> on shortly
> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another
> revision before being ready for WG LC
>
> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems
> achievable.
>
> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before
> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly
> too.
>
> Ben
>
> > We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a
> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is
> done.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: l3vpn-bounces@... [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> > Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38
> > To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); ben@...
> > Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN
> >
> > Dear WG members;
> >
> > With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that
> > there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working
> > group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of
> the
> > expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a
> > new working group with a different focus.
> >
> > If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing
> drafts are
> >
> > - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or
> >
> > - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or
> >
> > - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another
> > WG as individual submissions.
> >
> > We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any
> > insurmountable difficulties with this process.
> >
> > There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant
> another
> > L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG
> > (and of the work)
> > should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the
> > agenda to discuss this at
> > the RTGAREA meeting.
> >
> > If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the
> time
> > to speak up.
> >
> > Regards
> > Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins