Ignacio Goyret | 5 Dec 01:37 2006

LAST CALL: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt

Hi group,
I want to start a quick LC for the updated version of this document.
Vipin has put a lot of work in rehashing text around in an effort
to make the document more clear and easier to read.

I'd also like to hear from anyone that has implemented any of
the earlier drafts.

This Last Call will conclude on Dec/11/2006, 9:00 AM Pacific time.

Cheers,
-Ignacio

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions
>Working Group of the IETF.
>
>	Title		: Fail Over extensions for L2TP "failover"
>	Author(s)	: V. Jain
>	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt
>	Pages		: 21
>	Date		: 2006-11-30
>	
>L2TP is a connection-oriented protocol that has shared state between
>   active endpoints. Some of this shared state is vital for operation
>   but may be rather volatile in nature, such as packet sequence numbers
>   used on the L2TP Control Connection. When failure of one side of a
>   control connection occurs, a new control connection is created and
>   associated with the old connection by exchanging information about
(Continue reading)

Del Friedman | 5 Dec 01:42 2006
Picon

RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt

Paul,

Are you hooked in here?

Thanks -- Del 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ignacio Goyret [mailto:igoyret <at> alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 7:37 PM
To: l2tpext <at> ietf.org
Subject: [L2tpext] LAST CALL: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt

Hi group,
I want to start a quick LC for the updated version of this document.
Vipin has put a lot of work in rehashing text around in an effort
to make the document more clear and easier to read.

I'd also like to hear from anyone that has implemented any of
the earlier drafts.

This Last Call will conclude on Dec/11/2006, 9:00 AM Pacific time.

Cheers,
-Ignacio

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
Extensions
>Working Group of the IETF.
(Continue reading)

Stewart Bryant | 5 Dec 23:18 2006
Picon

Re: CEP IESG comments

I have seen no comments to this list on this topic, so I assume
that the WG has left the final decision to the authors.

The most conservative approach seems to me to remove the L2TPv3
text from the draft and write the L2TPv3 specific text in a
separate draft at a later time.

However I leave the final decision to the authors.

- Stewart

Ron Cohen wrote:

> Carlos,
> 
> Apologies for the late response.
> 
> You are correct and the draft does not state either an IANA requirement
> nor specify the LT2Pv3 PW type. The draft does not address L2TP
> signaling details as well. It only defines the on-the-wire format of CEP
> PW data over L2TP.
> 
> The current text reads:
> 
>    L2TPv3 [L2TPv3] session ID is used to multiplex individual CEP
>    channels over an L2TPv3 tunnel.  Detailed specification of CEP
>    behavior over L2TPv3 tunnels are beyond the scope of this document.
> 
> We (CEP authors) are not aware of full CEP over L2TPv3 implementations.
> The implementations and deployments of CEP are over MPLS. The thinking
(Continue reading)

Andrew G. Malis | 5 Dec 23:38 2006
Picon

Re: CEP IESG comments

Stewart,

Thanks  - that's the best approach, IHMO, given that there aren't any 
affected implementations.

Cheers,
Andy

At 12/5/2006 10:18 PM +0000, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>I have seen no comments to this list on this topic, so I assume
>that the WG has left the final decision to the authors.
>
>The most conservative approach seems to me to remove the L2TPv3
>text from the draft and write the L2TPv3 specific text in a
>separate draft at a later time.
>
>However I leave the final decision to the authors.
>
>- Stewart
Andrew G. Malis | 5 Dec 23:38 2006
Picon

Re: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments

Stewart,

Thanks  - that's the best approach, IHMO, given that there aren't any 
affected implementations.

Cheers,
Andy

At 12/5/2006 10:18 PM +0000, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>I have seen no comments to this list on this topic, so I assume
>that the WG has left the final decision to the authors.
>
>The most conservative approach seems to me to remove the L2TPv3
>text from the draft and write the L2TPv3 specific text in a
>separate draft at a later time.
>
>However I leave the final decision to the authors.
>
>- Stewart
Ignacio Goyret | 13 Dec 19:59 2006

Re: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt

With the LC time completed, I'll be sending this draft to the IESG
for publication.
Thanks to all who took the time to review this last version of
the draft.
Cheers and happy holidays!
-Ignacio

At 16:37 12/4/2006 -0800, Ignacio Goyret wrote:
>Hi group,
>I want to start a quick LC for the updated version of this document.
>Vipin has put a lot of work in rehashing text around in an effort
>to make the document more clear and easier to read.
>
>I'd also like to hear from anyone that has implemented any of
>the earlier drafts.
>
>This Last Call will conclude on Dec/11/2006, 9:00 AM Pacific time.
>
>Cheers,
>-Ignacio
>
>
>>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>directories.
>>This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions
>>Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>	Title		: Fail Over extensions for L2TP "failover"
>>	Author(s)	: V. Jain
>>	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt
(Continue reading)

Ignacio Goyret | 13 Dec 22:51 2006

draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover - publish request + proto questionnaire

Please, publish the ID draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt as
Proposed Standard.

Here are the answers to the PROTO questionnaire for this document:

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Yes. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG. Further detailed
review was performed by Ignacio Goyret.

There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No, we don't believe there is any need for additional review from other
areas. The document describes an extension that only affects L2TP.
It has been implemented and deployed for some time now, so there is
(Continue reading)


Gmane