Re: [Pppext] Working group last call for PPP TRILL [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-04.txt]

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

On 5/9/11 12:14 PM, James Carlson wrote:
> In this new version, I've removed stray footnote references from the
> stand-alone Abstract section and added a bit of detail to the Security
> Considerations -- specifically citing at least a few of the protocols
> involved.  There's a slippery slope here, in that I could easily end up
> describing all the possible deployment scenarios and incorporating
> essentially all of rfc-index.txt by reference, but I hope I've struck a
> reasonable balance.
>
Cynical overstatement.  I don't understand why PPP encryption and L2TP
are mentioned without providing a reference, but let's just agree to
disagree and let the RFC Editor sort it out.


> I've left the system ID issue as an informative reference.  No matter
> how I read this PPP document, providing system IDs is not a requirement
> for implementing this protocol.  It _might_ be a requirement for IS-IS
> implementations.  But the protocol described here isn't IS-IS.
>
Again, I've already agreed to disagree on the previous drafts.  It's OK,
as long as it references the proposed solution.


> So, with that, I'm starting up the last call period again.  Please
> respond by May 23rd, 2011, if you have any comments.  After that date,
> I'll ask the IESG to consider publishing.
>
Ship it!  The IESG consideration speed is so slow these days that it's
best to get it into the queue, so that they can have their say.

Ah well, now I'm being cynical.