Re: [Pppext] [rbridge] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

On 6/1/11 12:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> (Please include isis-wg on this thread.)
>
No.  It bounces, and ends up in my spam folder.  There's some kind of
moderator for non-members.


> I have a BIG PROBLEM with references to
>
>    [8] W. Simpson, "Generation of Unique IS-IS System Identifiers,"
>         (draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique), work in progress, March 2011
>
> This has been publicly reviewed and noted (and I think quite correctly
> so) as being seriously flawed. So even a passing suggestion that this
> might be a reasonable alternative for someone seems at best very
> premature.
>
This is *NOT* true!  You have been aware of the draft for months, and
had every opportunity to review.  The only comments you've sent me are
neither textual nor protocol relevant.  Your comments were:


On 4/25/11 1:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
# Is there a reason why the author is averse to bringing the draft to the
# WG?
#
# Is there a reason why the WG chairs/ADs are not "encouraging" the author
# to bring the draft to the WG?


On 4/25/11 4:31 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
# I am not aware that you EVER sent this to IS-IS WG for comments. I am
# aware that it was discussed on the TRILL list and the TRILL folks -
# quite correctly - said this had nothing to do w TRILL. I don't follow
# the PPP WG - but I could easily imagine that they would have said the
# same thing. As you propose a change in behavior for IS-IS
# implementations which is visible on the wire:
#
# <snip>
# After detecting a conflicting System Identifier in a neighbor, or
#     receiving 3 or more IS-IS Hellos and failing to resolve participation
#     in an area within 10 seconds, an implementation conforming with this
#     specification MUST generate a replacement System Identifier using one
#     of the techniques specified above.
# <end snip>
#
# it seems a bit obvious that the IS-IS WG would be an appropriate place
# to pursue the work.
#
# As to the need for speed in publishing this, I would point out that the
# IS-IS protocol has been successfully deployed for 20 years and this
# issue has not been a show stopper. That is not to say that your proposal
# may not have merit - but any suggestion that this is a precondition for
# publishing other IS-IS related drafts is flawed in my opinion.
#
# I encourage you to submit the draft to the IS-IS WG.
#
Five (5) months ago, that might have been helpful, but the work has been
completed and ready for publication for some time.  There is no need to
"pursue the work" in ISIS, since that implies there is more work.  I'm
not interested in unpaid make-work projects.

There is no need to "submit" to ISIS.  There are no oaths of fealty
involved.  I've included (and acknowledged) all the useful comments
received from ISIS WG members.