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

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

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]
> *Sent:* March 22, 2017 4:26 AM
> *To:* statements@ietf.org; Juan Carlos Zuniga
> <juancarlos.zuniga@sigfox.com>; Suresh Krishnan
> <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>; Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> (paul.nikolich@att.net)
> <paul.nikolich@att.net>; John Messenger <jmessenger@advaoptical.com>;
> Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>; 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>
>
> +1-613-963-8141
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>