Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100

This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG.

this last call will close on Friday 2nd November.

Nabil & Giles

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:41:46 +0000

Support as co-author.

-Ali

On 10/19/12 3:34 PM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for
>publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG.
>

---

From: Aldrin Isaac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:00:08 -0400

Support.

As co-author as well.

-- aldrin

---

From: "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:02:10 -0400

Support.

(not as co-author)

From: Aldrin Isaac <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:00 PM
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req

Support.

As co-author as well.

-- aldrin

Support as co-author.

-Ali

>this last call will close on Friday 2nd November.

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:35:22 -0400

Support.

-Samita

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Giles Heron
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req

Nabil & Giles

---

From: "Senad.palislamovic" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:28:17 -0400

Support.  

-senad

Sent from my iPhone

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:05:21 +0200

Support as co-author

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: zaterdag 20 oktober 2012 2:42
To: Giles Heron; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req

Support as co-author.

-Ali

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:38:09 -0400

I see a lot of one-word responses on the WG last call. Just from a
point of process, this sort of response is more appropriate for a WG
adoption poll. WG last call provides a last chance for WG participants
to read the draft and provide substantive comments, and also to show
the WG chairs that the draft has at least been read.

In my case, I've read the draft and believe it includes a good
representation of the E-VPN requirements that have been discussed by
the WG. My only real comment is that the number of authors is going to
have to be brought down to five in order to get it through the IESG
and the RFC Editor.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:41:38 -0400

Actually, I do have one more comment I forgot to include in my earlier
email. The draft header says "Standards Track", but requirements RFCs
are typically Informational rather than Standards Track. This can be
discussed between the WG chairs and the ADs.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Phil Bedard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:59:10 -0400

I support the document but found one error:

In 4.2 there is a reference to "Section 3.1" which should be "Section
4.1."  

Phil

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:28:09 +0000

Yes/support

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: "Luay Jalil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:55:22 -0500

Support

This draft does a good job in representing the requirements for an E-VPN
solution to address many challenges/issues with the current Ethernet L2VPN
solutions

Regards,
Luay

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Giles Heron
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req

Nabil & Giles

---

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:02:54 +0100

Thanks Andy - good comment.

so yes, it'd be great to see more substantive comments than "support" or "+1"

point taken re the number of authors.  It might be the authors can agree amongst themselves who to put at the top as an editor and who to list further down the document...

Giles

---

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:03:14 +0100

Ah, good catch.  I'll follow that up with the ADs.

Giles