Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN

> Ben, i just want to ensure we close the work as you pointed out before considering closing the WG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:ben@...]
> Sent: zondag 22 januari 2012 10:59
> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; 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
>
>