Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Interoperability with Customer Edge (CE) Bridges
RFC 6246

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Sam Hartman) Discuss

Discuss (2007-12-19 for -)
Security directorate comments by Phillip Hallam-baker have not been
addressed.  These comments were not submitted as public last call
comments.  However they raise serious readability and interpretability
questions of the document.  I do know that some of Phil's comments are
wrong because I've read some of the VPLS base specs.  So, I tried to
make an independent review of the document in order to determine if
there was anything blocking.  However I failed to be able to
comprehend the document well enough to follow it.  I gave up in the
middle of section 3 with very little understanding of where the
document was going and low confidence that the description of VPLS in
this document matched my understanding from the base VPLS specs.

To make this discuss actionable, I recommend that the authors work
with reviewers outside their working group and improve the document to
a point where someone who has not worked extensively in the L2VPN
working group but who has read the VPLS documents can easily follow
the document and can accurately describe what is going on.

(David Ward) (was No Objection) Discuss

Discuss (2007-12-20 for -)
Unfort, I find the doc very, very terse and almost unable to understand the points that are being made and the suggested recommendations. In addition I find it odd that there are cases where interop needs to be "worked out." It suggests that an interop procedure or recommendation is incomplete and thus, the doc is premature.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-09)
No email
send info
The new revision addresses a number of the points I raised in my review of 11-Apr-2009. I will clear my Discuss and record the three unaddressed points here.

Section 2
Maybe this could use a figure. There is a lot of information conveyed
and perhaps a figure of a VPLS showing the network and instance would
Figure 2+
I can sort of look at figures 1 and 2 and see a more complete picture
of the PE model with PWs on one side and CEs on another. I think that
in figure 2 it would help to label the ACs (C-VLANs), but it would also
be helpful to show CE attachment when the ACs are not VLANs.
Is there some way to give this more comprehensive picture?
Section 9
To me, this section feels very light. I am not a security expert,
but the fact that you are extending an architectural model should
give rise to new security issues for consideration.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Record

Comment (2007-12-20 for -)
No email
send info
This draft does not pass idnits