Re: [Int-area] [www.ietf.org/rt #163372] Liaison from IEEE 802.1 WG to IETF IntArea WG

On 03/23/2017 10:29 AM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> Erik,
>
> The informative annexes explain how to use 802.1Q bridges to implement
> Pfivate VLANs. The capabilities that allow that are covered in the
> normative body of IEEE Std 802.1Q.
>
> The liaison includes suggested text for the ID describing details of
> configuring 802.1Q bridges to accomplish that including references to
> normative parts of 802.1Q.

Pat,

That's great. I initially missed those details in the liaison.

Would it be OK to take that text from the liaison and add it as 
information to the draft? And if so, should I acknowledge anybody in 
particular or just the IEEE 802.1 committee?

Thanks,
     Erik

>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org
> <mailto:nordmark@acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 03/22/2017 02:30 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga wrote:
>
>         Dear IntArea WG,
>
>
>
>         Please note that we have received the attached liaison letter
>         from the
>         IEEE 802.1 WG with respect to “IP over intentionally partially
>         partitioned links” draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl-05.
>
>
>     I don't see the document listed on
>     http://www.ieee802.org/Communications.shtml#Comm_1703
>     <http://www.ieee802.org/Communications.shtml#Comm_1703>
>
>     Will it be added there so we can refer to it?
>
>
>     Some more detailed comments below:
>
>         1. The tone of the draft should be, "how a router can take
>         advantage of the
>         Asymmetric (Private) VLAN feature offered by 802.1Q bridges."
>
>
>         2. Modifying the section in question to describe how it works,
>         without any
>         conformance language on bridge behavior but explaining 802.1Q
>         standard
>         bridge configuration instead.
>
>
>         3. Make a normative reference to 802.1Q.
>
>
>     My bad; I thought I already had it as a reference.
>     However, I'm not sure it can be normative since both annex B and
>     annex F are marked as informational in 802.1Q-1998. It wasn't clear
>     to me that there is sufficient material in the normative parts of
>     802.1Q-1998 to describe the required behaviors for promiscuous,
>     community, and isolated ports.
>
>     If the 802.1 group is asserting that all of those behaviors are
>     (optional) parts of the 802.1Q-1998 standard it would be helpful to
>     know that.
>
>     In addition, if possible, also to have more specific references to
>     normative sections in 802.1Q which describe this behavior.
>
>     We'd still need some explanatory text in the draft to map between
>     the 802.1Q terminology and the "promiscuous, community, isolated"
>     terminology that is used in industry. Before seeing the test I can't
>     tell whether such text would need to have RFc2119 terms to describe
>     the mapping. However, I don't think that would be a constraints on
>     bridge implementations but instead statements of the form "for the
>     purposes if running IP over 802.1Q we assume that
>     promisc/community/isolated ports are configured as follows using the
>     802.1Q asymetric VLAN standard...
>
>     But that is predicated on the all the necessary "private VLAN"
>     behaviors being part of the IEEE 802.1Q-1998 standard. So I'd be
>     greatful for clarifications on that point before I start editing the
>     draft.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>         Erik
>
>
>
>         If you have any comments, please send them to the list.
>
>
>
>         We will also allocate some time for to discuss about this during our
>         meeting in Chicago.
>
>
>
>         Best,
>
>
>
>         Juan-Carlos & Wassim
>
>         (IntArea WG co-chairs)
>
>
>
>
>
>         *From:*Glenn Parsons [mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com
>         <mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>]
>         *Sent:* March 22, 2017 4:26 AM
>         *To:* statements@ietf.org <mailto:statements@ietf.org>; Juan
>         Carlos Zuniga
>         <juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com
>         <mailto:juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com>>; Suresh Krishnan
>         <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
>         <mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>>; Wassim Haddad
>         <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com <mailto:wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>>
>         *Cc:* Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net
>         <mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net>> (paul.nikolich@att.net
>         <mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net>)
>         <paul.nikolich@att.net <mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net>>; John
>         Messenger <jmessenger@advaoptical.com
>         <mailto:jmessenger@advaoptical.com>>;
>         Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com
>         <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>>; pat.thaler@broadcom.com
>         <mailto:pat.thaler@broadcom.com>
>         *Subject:* Liaison from IEEE 802.1 WG to IETF IntArea WG
>
>
>
>         Please find attached a liaison from the IEEE 802.1 WG.
>
>
>
>         I will be available to present this during the  IntArea WG meeting.
>         This is in regards to your agenda item #4.
>
>
>
>         Cheers,
>
>         Glenn.
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>
>         Glenn Parsons - Chair, IEEE 802.1
>
>         glenn.parsons@ericsson.com <mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>
>         <mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com
>         <mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>>
>
>         +1-613-963-8141 <tel:%2B1-613-963-8141>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Int-area mailing list
>         Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Int-area mailing list
>     Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
>
>