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

[Vernon Schryver <[e-mail]>]

> ...
> This whole thing needs to be MUCH, more carefully thought out, if indeed =
> a solution
> is to be attempted.

Indeed.

The PPPEXT WG and all documents produced by the PPPEXT WG should stick
to PPP, and not try to fix other protocols, whether IS-IS, RIP, BGP,
HTTP, TCP, or anything else.  It is as wrong to try solve IS-IS problems
in the PPPEXT WG as it is to solve PPP problems in other IETF working
groups or other standards organizations' committees.

It's irrelevant that the familiar, often well founded suspicions
of forum shopping do not fit this controversy.  More to the point,
if neither forum shopping nor coup counting matter, then the "LSR War"
and related IS-IS problems talked about in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique-01
must be considered first in the ISIS WG.  Only if and when the ISIS WG
decides that IS-IS needs help in the point-to-point protocol should
the PPPEXT WG notice.

That participants in the ISIS WG might need to subscribe to the ISIS-WG
mailing list to participate in those discussions is irrelevant here.

If the ISIS WG fails to agree that a problem needs to be solved,
then this PPPEXT WG is required to keep quiet and not be helpful.
The ISIS WG group has a duty to be as wrong as it feels is right.

None of that precludes individual submissions or non-standards track
RFCs, but those would be irrelevant to J.Carlson's standards track
document.


Are PPP WGs still ruled by consensus?  Does anyone besides W.Simpson
think that J.Carlson's PPP TRILL document should say more than the
global minimum about IS-IS system identifiers, possibly nothing at
all?  I propose that mention of the IS-IS identifier uniqueness be
minimized in the PPP TRILL document.  If ISIS WG decides on a problem
and wants PPP TRILL changes, then a new PPP TRILL RFC can published.


Vernon Schryver    [e-mail]