Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-00.txt

From: Ali Sajassi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:06:45 -0700

At 11:22 PM 9/20/2004 +0200, Per Ole Klemetsrud wrote:
>Why references to VPLS-LDP in this framework?  My employer (service 
>provider) has deployed BGP signaled VPLS with great success, and although 
>many vendors have their (non technical) reasons for implementing VPLS-LDP, 
>I see no reason to limit the scope of documents such as these to only VPLS-LDP.

The references to VPLS-LDP was given to illustrate that an end-to-end 
service can span across different network types  - e.g, mixture of .1ad and 
mpls which is discussed in section 12 of that draft. However, the OAM 
requirements and framework shall be applied to any type of VPLS regardless 
of what type of signaling approach is used to setup the PWs.

-Ali

>If there IS a technical reason for this draft to reference VPLS-LDP, I 
>must have missed it, and a clarification would be welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Per Ole Klemetsrud
>

---

From: "Dinesh Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:42:07 -0400

Per Ole,

Thank you for your review of the draft. Reference to VPLS-BGP will be added
in the next version, along with other things pointed out during the 2-week
WG call on the mailing list. The omission was unintentional as pointed out
by Ali.

Regards,
Dinesh
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ali Sajassi
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 6:07 PM
To: Per Ole Klemetsrud; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-00.txt

-Ali