Subject: Re: Discussing additional milestones that could be adopted by the WG?

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:14:23 +0100

Colleagues,

To follow-up on this, from comments on the mailing list and private conversations between the chairs and some participants it would appear that for BiDir P-tunnels at least:

- There is interest in the work and some loose agreement among the people that we spoke with that the existing specifications only minimally specify solutions using BiDir P-tunnels

- But that there are some quite different views on what the scope of any work on BiDir P-tunnels should be.

We already have draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir on the table which has received some debate. It would be useful if one or more of the people that are not happy with the scope of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir were to make alternative proposal(s) for the scope of work required to address BiDir P-tunnels so we can see where the common ground may be as a start to see if we can progress a specification for BiDir P-tunnels. 

Thanks
Ben

On 16 Aug 2010, at 18:29, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> From comments made in Maastricht it seems that there are some objections to adopting the two proposed milestones listed below and that they would require further discussion on the mailing list before consensus to include them on the charter page could be reached.
> 
> The two proposed milestones were:
> Sep-11	Submit specification of using Bi-directional P-tunnels for MVPN to IESG as PS.
> Nov-11	Submit specification for using PE-PE PIM in the absence of MI-PMSI to IESG as PS.
> 
> Before we have a discussion on the details of their individual merits I would like to ask if anyone feels strongly that they *should* be included in the WG's milestones (because if no-one feels strongly about including them we can save our bandwidth for other discussions). Including the reasoning why you feel strongly that they should be included would also be helpful in seeding a discussion on whether they should be included or not.
> 
> When responding please consider what I have said before, i.e. that a piece of work not being in the milestones does not prevent individuals or the WG from working on it, or it being accepted as a WG document at some point, etc. The milestones are there to guide our work and serve as a loose prioritisation of tasks that consume WG & WG Chair time but should not be used as a barrier to doing work that the WG feels is important.
> 
> Thanks
> Ben
>