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@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:18 AM > To: vkompella@timetra.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.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 >