IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fedyk, Donald (Don)" <donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 06 May 2010 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.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 2AD3728C437 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 07:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.298, BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 fe32Gdv1zxkM for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4264128C295 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2010 06:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o46Dn4bJ023176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 May 2010 08:49:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id o46Dn4Gq023634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 May 2010 08:49:04 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.144]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Thu, 6 May 2010 08:49:03 -0500
From: "Fedyk, Donald (Don)" <donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "raszuk@cisco.com" <raszuk@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "david.i.allan@ericsson.com" <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 08:49:02 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
Thread-Index: Acrsp7rGkE5tZNTXQzCEl203ILYEWgAeit5A
Message-ID: <D3F33DCB7804274A890F9215F86616580AC5ECDD46@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4BE1FA23.5010209@cisco.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
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
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 14:07:56 -0000

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