My opinion is that we should keep the WG open at least until the current
active drafts and an mVPN extranet draft, are pushed to IESG. The
alternatives mentioned below don't look to me as particularly appealing.
Marshall Eubanks :
> 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.
> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins