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

[David Allan I <[e-mail]>]

DA2> OK, the 2%

I think we are on the same wavelength in 98% of the mail. So I just try to point those little 2% which I would question ...

> DA>  I presume you are referring to splitting out the OTV components.

Yes.

> I of course believe they do not belong in draft-isis-layer-2,

Well I think they do belong nicely there. OTV is an L2 technology. So from new implementer and customer POV it is nice to have one doc to read, compare what makes most sense for them to deploy.

DA2> OTHER ISSUES ASIDE, it is has been clearly demonstrated that the 3 technologies in the draft all have complely orthogonal sets of TLVs. There is no reason to keep them together.

But yes .. new draft .. WG doc .. then merge path with the above.

DA2> If someone can show me a document that describes how OTV works is on RFC standards track, I'll agree references to it belong in a standards track RFC that documents the routing schema for it. As long as it is proprietary, it should be treated as such, and have the common decency to stay out of the way....

> before they are even considered by IS-IS WG in another form I actually 
> think draft-hasmit needs a home, such that the IS-IS extensions are 
> not simply a schema with no defined semantics in some enduring form 
> (cf. simply some expired draft at some point in the future)...The mere 
> existence of an individual submission is not justification for a WG to 
> take on an item...
 >
> Would you and other's agree that this could be the best way out from 
> this thread ?
>
> DA>  I think I've been clear, there is really two possibilities. One
> is OTV needs to be adopted as a standards track item, charter change 
> yadda yadda (and this is more than just the IS-IS TLVs), to which 
> L2VPN looks like the most appropriate home, otherwise it is BOF time.
> Once it is on track to produce a document both IS-IS WG and IANA can 
> reference, it can progress from there. The other alternative is 
> informational track. Those are the choices we all have when we choose 
> to introduce technology to the IETF, it's up to the OTV proponents 
> which path they take...

Well .. charter change seems to me always like a heading to brick wall so I am not sure if that is needed in L2VPN. But informational track is just fine too. Nothing wrong with that. Some technologies did in fact very well while starting informational :) /* As you very well know I am sure */

DA2> Yep

> Anything else seems patently incomplete and a bad idea...or 
> inappropriate...

I think we have that one covered so time to move on to new challenges :)))

DA2> Would like to think so, I would have thought this was much more cut and dried, more fool me...

D