Melinda,
"We're doing it" is a statement of fact. However, we've been doing it for over
two years. Pseudo-wire work has been ongoing for over 4 years. MPLS has been
ongoing since 1996 or thereabouts.
I know there are some who think the IETF shouldn't be working on MPLS and its
applications. I think there are those who think it should be. I haven't heard
anything that says we are doing this in opposition to a consensus who would like
to see MPLS disappear or move to some other organization.
So you may voice your personal "uh-oh" but show me the consensus "uh-oh" before
I stop.
-Vach
-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:mshore(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:18 AM
To: vkompella(_at_)timetra(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
We're doing it.
That's an "uh-oh" comment. It's very common to hear people
say that the IETF doesn't know how to say "no" to new work.
I think the real problem is that many people bringing new
work to the IETF don't know how to accept being told "no"
and it leads to harass-a-thons of the IESG on the one hand
and dubious work on the other. I think part of committing
to working in collaborative organizations like the IETF is
arguing your case the best you can but agreeing to accept
community consensus even if it doesn't come out the way
you'd like.
Primarily, folks want to use it as in
"Ethernet-over-MPLS". That may not necessarily go down
well with you either, but think of MPLS as a logical FR.
I think we need to retain a focus on connectionless,
packet-oriented delivery and how to build on that. I wonder
if we aren't going considerably astray with the growing
emphasis on pseudo-circuits.
Melinda