I am supportive of the draft (and yes I read it Giles :) ). I just wonder whether we should adopt it as is or we should try to generalize it to more generic L2 DC requirements.
As you know we will have a special L2VPN session in Taipei dedicated to DC proposals. There were a number of drafts (see NVO3 proposals) on L2 multi-tenancy for DC with sections on problem statement that might generate DC requirements beyond the scope of evpn-req draft.
Should we go ahead with this or wait until Taipei to see how is the best to move forward?
Comments?
Florin
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
l2vpn-bounces@... [mailto:
l2vpn-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
> Giles Heron
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:59 AM
> To: Alia Atlas
> Cc:
l2vpn@...
> Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
>
> Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like it
> to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-)
>
> It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this call
> (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!)
>
> Giles
>
> On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" <
akatlas@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes please
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron <
giles.heron@...> wrote:
> >
> >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:
> >>
> >>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01> >>
> >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
> >>
> >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a
> >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July
> >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those
> >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If
> >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft
> >> shouldn't
> >> be adopted - which we can then debate.
> >>
> >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Giles
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
