[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Single vs many solution(s)
Loa,
I think it is indeed the right thing to ask the IESG
to come up with clear formulation of the concerns.
Consider me the token holder.
Thanks.
--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/
Tuesday, May 27, 2003, 2:03:42 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Yakov,
> I don't have the power to require that IESG do or don't do anything.
> What I can do is to send a specification to the IESG asking them to
> review it and publish as an RFC, that is what any wg chair can do.
> But I can send an humble request ;)
> IESG,
> the ppvpn wg group has an ID describing a solution for the L2VPN space
> based
> on MP-BGP as a signaling protocol, and also an ID describing a VPN
> membership
> discovery mechanism based on BGP.
> We have been informed by our ADs that IESG have concerns relating to the
> use of
> BGP in this context. To simplify the future work in the wg it would be
> useful to have those concerns documented.
> /Loa
> PS
> Is this "enough"?
> Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>> Loa,
>>
>>
>>>Hamid,
>>>
>>>I think that is wishful thinking. I know that there are issues with
>>>using bgp (kkompella) from several ADs including at least Alex.
>>
>>
>> Just saying that "there are issues" isn't enough - "the several
>> ADs" who have these issues need to document them, and then discuss
>> it in an open forum (WG mailing list) to see whether these "issues"
>> are of any practical significance.
>>
>> Yakov.
>>
>> P.S. So far we've seen Alex raising the issues he has with using BGP,
>> and Pedro addressing them...
>>
>>
>>
>>