Hi Ben,
I agree with Wim, Thomas, Maria and Ice. It is clearly wise to address
all L3VPN related documents in this working group rather then attempting
to prematurely close this working group. And this is not only limited to
documents accepted as WG docs, but also to new submission in this space
... all should be worked on here.
As a matter of fact extending the L3VPN to also cover data centers
tenants isolation IMHO fits very nicely in this working group rather
then on some new dc alias.
It almost seems like that someone is just pushing to close this WG to
make sure existing solutions stay sealed while no other ideas (even if
better) have IETF room to evolve and progress to RFCs ;)
Best,
R.
> Hi Ben,
>
> I agree with Wim, Thomas and Maria.
>
> Just keep the L3VPN WG active until the WG documents are done and the individual submissions have been sorted out.
>
>> I guess the question is really whether there needs to be an L3VPN group in order to progress drafts such as the one you mention?
>
> Don't you think it helps to have a focused group to help process it?
>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
