Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

Margaret Wasserman <> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0540921F86C4 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.264
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Cpq7sG1b9UW for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2B921F86A4 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 086E1203C0; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:00:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ralph Droms <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Thomas Narten <>, Donald Eastlake <>,
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:00:51 -0000

On May 15, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> draft-mrw-trill-over-ip is not out of scope, it's just not on the current list of deliverables for the working group.  The core charter of the working group is still OK but the list of deliverables is more than a year old.  Some have been completed, some have seen some progress but are late, some have not been addressed at all.  It's appropriate for the WG to revisit the list of deliverables, decide what documents are core and revise the charter appropriately.

I agree that the charter could use an update, and I support updating it!  :-)

Personally, I would like to see the concept of a "TRILL over IP" encapsulation added to the new charter, whether that eventually leads to adopting my current draft, or deciding to go with another approach (like TRILL over Ethernet over IP), as I think this is something that is clearly needed for the deployment of TRILL in large campuses.

I don't think we should allow ourselves to get stuck in situation where we all agree that a problem is in-scope for the WG, but we can't adopt or advance any drafts to address that problem, because we haven't handled the bureaucratic end of things yet.  So, let's get the charter update done quickly.  Is there anything I can do to help?