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

[Pat Thaler <[e-mail]>]

I'll leave it to Glenn and Janos to answer those questions. I believe that
the text was written with the intent that it could be incorporated into the
ID.

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>         *Sent:* March 22, 2017 4:26 AM
>>         *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Juan
>>         Carlos Zuniga
>>         <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Suresh Krishnan
>>         <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Wassim Haddad
>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>         *Cc:* Paul Nikolich <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> ([e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>)
>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; John
>>         Messenger <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>         Janos Farkas <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         *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
>>
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>         [phone] <tel:%2B1-613-963-8141>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Int-area mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Int-area mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>
>>
>>
>>
>