Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of David Allan I
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:31 AM
> To: David Ward; isis-wg
> Cc: Christian Hopps; Adrian Farrel; Ralph Droms
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review
> will be required
> 
> Hi Folks:
> 
> While the decision of splitting the drafts is in discussion (and that is a
> direction I favor as the scope of IS-IS changes is radically different and
> disjoint between the "layer 2"s), the question needs to be asked "what in
> the draft survives the split as WG items".
> 
> 802.1aq - yes
> TRILL - yes
> OTV - does not belong here, it is proprietary...
> 
> If OTV is standardized it COULD be considered by the WG at some point in
> the future. Right now it is simply an wholly inappropriate complication in
> addressing the two technologies the WG has agreed to...
> 
> It should be removed from the draft and a new version published ASAP.
> 
> My 2 cents
> D
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of David Ward
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:30 PM
> To: isis-wg
> Cc: Christian Hopps; Ralph Droms; Jari Arkko; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will be
> required
> 
> All -
> 
> The WG Chairs would like to be clear on the approach to review and
> progression of the draft: draft-ietf-isis-layer2. There will be a request
> for the routing directorate, specific guest reviewers and a lengthy
> community review. There will also be a requirement of multiple,
> interoperable implementations. Whether we split the draft into TRILL, .aq,
> OTV extensions into separate drafts or not, the foundational changes to
> ISIS for each of the technologies will need to be proven working and
> correct.
> 
> The draft itself will need to be cleaned up and clear what PDUs, TLVs, etc
> are necessary for any of this technology which will make reading and
> implementation awareness easier. If we decide to split them (we will
> decide later - please remain calm  and not discuss this nit now- let's get
> the information completed as we know it); it will be quite trivial. If we
> decide not to; it will be clear to the reader/implementor.
> 
> The purpose of such a process is because in several decades of the
> existence of ISIS and extremely wide deployment, no new PDU types were
> ever deemed necessary. The new TLVs being proposed and the data being
> carried has never been carried before and may cause new scaling,
> performance or other impacts that we don't currently understand. We need
> to fully understand the impact of these changes and learn what we don't
> know about the changes we are proposing. I've found in my experience that
> new protocols, new technologies and fundamental changes to protocols
> require a deep understanding and implementation experience and not a rush
> to RFC. Headsup
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -DWard, CHopps
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

Re: [Isis-wg] New Layer2 extensions to ISIS - thorough review will be required