On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Linda Dunbar <
linda.dunbar@...> wrote:
> Does it mean that VPN4DC discussion which was held in L3VPN WG session at Taipei will be moved to a new WG? Should L3VPN wait until the new WG is established?
>
That is an entirely separate matter. The VPN4DC discussion was held
in L3VPN, by request, partially to see if it should be included inside
L3VPN. I think it is fair to say that there is not consensus to do
that. Further discussion on this topic is underway in the DC mailing
list.
Marshall
> Linda Dunbar
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
l3vpn-bounces@... [mailto:
l3vpn-bounces@...] On Behalf
>> Of Marshall Eubanks
>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 AM
>> 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