Re: [Isis-wg] Progressing draft-ietf-isis-trill

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 11/10/10 08:29 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Erik -
>
> My concern in regards to the proposed use of two documents
> (draft-ietf-trill-adj/draft-ietf-isis-trill) has nothing to do with
> "process" - which you discuss in detail below. It has to do with the
> interdependence of the content. When defining extensions to the IS-IS
> protocol it is necessary to define the new protocol behaviors and to
> define the new TLVs, sub-TLVs, etc. that are used in support of the new
> behaviors. To separate the two into different documents is arbitrary and
> illogical. Until the review of the protocol behavior is completed we
> cannot know if the current definition of the TLVs is complete and
> accurate. And until the review of the TLVs is completed we cannot know
> whether the protocol behavior description is complete and accurate. Thus
> the separation makes life more difficult for both the reviewers and the
> authors - and ultimately makes the use of the document(s) as a reference
> more difficult.

The protocol behavior for TRILL is specified in 
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol, and not in a draft-ietf-isis-trill. 
That was the reason we asked the ISIS WG to review that document several 
times over several years. As has been stated in the past, there was an 
agreement between the INT and RTG ADs and the TRILL and ISIS co-chairs 
to do the ISIS code points and TLV formats in the ISIS WG.

The new draft-ietf-trill-adj is split from 
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol due to the extremely late review 
comments we received as I specified in my email.

I don't think it is uncommon to have code points and formats be reviewed 
separately in the IETF. For example, some new protocol might require 
some new DHCP option which would be reviewed in the DHC WG.

Having reviewed protocol documents in the IETF for a number of years 
that doesn't seem like a big deal.

> I used the example of RFC 5303 - but one could look at any of the RFCs
> that have been produced by the IS-IS WG (as well as other WGs) over the
> years. No one has chosen to make such a separation - and I think for
> very good reasons.
>
> I believe the goal at this time is to provide the IS-IS WG with the
> opportunity to review the changes to the IS-IS protocol which are
> required by TRILL.

That opportunity started in 2008 (and we did receive some comments back 
then) and concluded with the last call in ISIS in January 2010.

> In regards to the history you present below, I will only say that an
> expectation was explicitly set as far back as draft-ward-l2isis-xx (back
> in 2005!!) that all extensions to the IS-IS protocol in support of the
> L2 technologies would be defined in an IS-IS WG draft. In more recent
> times we had draft-ietf-isis-layer2-xx and now L2 technology specific
> documents. My assumption has always been that once the various L2
> technologies had reached a level of maturity that they would add the
> normative description of changes to the IS-IS protocol processes to an
> IS-IS document along with the TLV definitions as this has been the
> normal practice with all other protocol extensions as noted above.

The ISIS chair agreed to only have code points and TLV formats in ISIS 
with the blessings of the RTG and INT ADs.
Were you not informed of this agreement?

   Erik