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

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

On 6/1/11 12:10 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 16:50, James Carlson wrote:
>> Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>>> All that said, I don't really care. This is a tempest in a teapot. I
>>>> can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
>>>> passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
>>>> considered by the IS-IS community.
>>> James,
>>>
>>> I believe that any departure from the text in ISO10589 needs
>>> to be discussed in the ISIS WG.

Please point to the text in ISO10589 on configuring System Identifiers.

Quote the section and page.

Please point to the text in ISO10589 on autonomously resolving conflicting
System Identifiers.

Quote the section and page.

Heck, I've not seen any reference to duplicate System Identifiers in
ISO10589 anywhere.  Perhaps the standardese escaped my notice?


>> "Any" departure? No matter how subservient? That seems as inflexible
>> as the other end of this spectrum.
>> If I suggested text like this, would it require ISIS WG discussion, and,
>> if so, what's the chance that this discussion would terminate in a
>> positive way?
>>
>> 3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no
>> Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) that can form an IS-IS
>> System ID. Resolving that issue is outside the scope of this
>> document, however it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all TRILL
>> implementations have at least one zero-configuration mechanism to
>> obtain a valid System ID. Refer to ISO/IEC 10589 regarding System
>> ID uniqueness requirements.
> You are OK up to here since you conform to the current ISIS spec.
>
>> Alternative solutions to this issue
>> may also be defined in the future; see [8] for an example.
> This needs to be discussed in the ISIS WG, and I cannot vouch
> for the outcome.
>
Maybe you should try following the IETF process as written, instead of
wasting all of our time.  The ISIS chairs refused to take it up months
ago.  They have had plenty of notice.  The draft has been well reviewed.

You have mere days left to writeup any text the IESG wants included.
Better get cracking....