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

[Paul Unbehagen <[e-mail]>]

Agreed 
--
Paul




On Apr 25, 2010, at 5:18 AM, John E Drake wrote:

> +1
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg