IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt

David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D5828C466 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.988, BAYES_20=-0.74, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqwgFT8nl7Dz for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9B93A6CCD for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2010 07:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o46ELN9c001235; Thu, 6 May 2010 09:21:37 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.224]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Thu, 6 May 2010 10:16:16 -0400
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: "Fedyk, Donald (Don)" <donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com>, "raszuk@cisco.com" <raszuk@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 10:16:14 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
Thread-Index: Acrsp7rGkE5tZNTXQzCEl203ILYEWgAeit5AAAD11JA=
Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4F9AB46C43@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4F9AAE46AB@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7197B78D-D549-42E6-ABE7-0F5814E0C6B5@cisco.com> <8874F6219396A04CA291C90CCD7F9C070CE88927@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4F9AAE4D47@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4BE1FA23.5010209@cisco.com> <D3F33DCB7804274A890F9215F86616580AC5ECDD46@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3F33DCB7804274A890F9215F86616580AC5ECDD46@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 14:40:47 -0000

I get the feeling consensus is emerging...

1) draft-ietf-isis-layer-2 is reissued with OTV removed. 
2) OTV folks make their choice (existing WG, BOF, informational) as to how they progress their technology...

This looks good to me
D  

-----Original Message-----
From: Fedyk, Donald (Don) [mailto:donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:49 AM
To: raszuk@cisco.com; isis-wg@ietf.org; David Allan I
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt

Hi Robert 

You wrote :
 
"On the draft of draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt I think the best way would be to indeed separate the new encoding into a separate draft, submit as individual contribution (there is still some time before next IETF in Maastricht and ask for agenda item on this or other WG to present.

Would you and other's agree that this could be the best way out from this thread ?"

On this I agree,
Don 



-----Original Message-----
From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> ] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk

Hi David,

I think there is nothing wrong with shipping pre-standard implementations of any protocol.

Of course vendor takes a risk here if by going via standards process the spec will change based on the input from WG. Then he has to worry about interoperability issues with his pre-standard implementation.

Remember how tag switching surfaced ?

If you want to go this path I am sure you are very well aware that there is a really long list from any vendor to publish a draft when an implementation is ready.

I don't want to start any sort of flame war here on that. But I think this was never a showstopper in IETF to have an implementation. Of course authors can not use it as justification of any sort and here I am with you and others.

So considering both drafts on the table I think draft-hasmit-otv-00 is a very good individual contribution which does in fact has a lot of technical merit.

On the draft of draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt I think the best way would be to indeed separate the new encoding into a separate draft, submit as individual contribution (there is still some time before next IETF in Maastricht and ask for agenda item on this or other WG to present.

Would you and other's agree that this could be the best way out from this thread ?

Cheers,
R.

<snip>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email