Re: L2VPN drafty charter

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

The point of the charter sounds good to me.
Grammar suggestions.....

--On 17. april 2003 01:48 -0700 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> wrote:

> For the PPVPN discussion: below is the proposed drafty charter
> for the L2VPN WG.
>
> --
> Alex
> http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
>
> Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
>
> Chairs:
>
>  Vach
>  Loa
>
> Area Director(s):
>  Thomas
>  Erik
>
> Area Advisor:
>  Thomas
>
> Technical Advisor:
>  Alex
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> This working group is responsible for defining and specifying a
> limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned
> layer-2 virtual private networks (L2VPNs).
>
> The WG is responsible for standardization of the following solutions:
>
> 1. Virtual Private LAN Service--L2 service that emulates LAN
                               ^(VPLS)                   ^a
>    across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network.
    across an IP infrastructure or an MPLS infrastructure.
    (unsure about how to put it, but the previous grammar didn't parse)
    (reason to include acronyms is that you use them later)
> 2. Vritual Private Wire Service--L2 service that provides L2
                                ^(VPWS)
>    point-to-point connectivity (e.g. Frame Relay DLCI, ATM VPI/VCI,
>    point-to-point Ethernet) across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network.
                                        same comment
> The WG will address intra-AS scenarios only at this point
The WG will only address scenarios where the whole infrastructure that the 
service runs across is within a single BGP Autonomous System.

>  (inter-AS
> considerations will be considered for inclusion in the updated
> charter when the current one is completed.)
>
> As a general rule, the WG will not create new protocols, but will
> provide functional requirements for extensions of the existing
                        s/the//
> protocols that will be discussed in the protocol-specific WGs.
> As a specific example, this WG will not define new encapsulation
> mechanism, but will use those defined in the PWE3 WG.
 s/mechanism/mechanisms/
> The WG will work on the following items, adding new work items
> will require rechartering:
>
> 1. Discovery of PEs participating in L2 service, and
  s/PEs/Provider Equipment/???? (not sure what PE means this week)
>    topology of required connectivity
>
> 2. Signaling of psuedo-wire and service parameters
>
> 3. Solution documents (providing the framework for a specific
>    solution, should include info on how discovery, signaling,
>    and encaps work together, include security, AS as a separate
>    document,...)
3. Solution documents. Each solution document should provide the framework 
for a specific solution, including info on how discovery, signalling and 
encapsulation works together, and discuss the security considerations and 
applicability of the solution.

> 4. MIBs
>
> 5. L2VPN-specific OAM extensions--extensions to existing OAM
>    solutions for VPLS and VPWS.
would be nice to expand OAM.

> Milestones:
>
> JUL 2003  Submit L2 requirements to IESG for publication as Informational
> RFC JUL 2003  Submit L2 framework to IESG for publication as
> Informational RFC JUL 2003  Identify VPLS and VPWS solutions for the WG
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPLS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPWS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D on OAM for VPLS
> AUG 2003  Submit an I-D on OAM for VPWS
> DEC 2003  Submit VPLS solution documents to IESG
> DEC 2003  Submit VPWS solution documents to IESG
> JAN 2004  Submit MIB for VPLS to IESG
> JAN 2004  Submit MIB for VPWS to IESG
> MAR 2004  Submit OAM for VPLS to IESG
> MAR 2004  Submit OAM for VPWS to IESG