[trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 06 March 2018 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: trill@ietf.org
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F96F1270B4; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:28:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, trill-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.74.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152036811638.28279.11284897771242295868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:28:36 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/6oZ1k0c4JY5rlZ_2w0btYAdyrWw>
Subject: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:28:36 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I'm having trouble understanding what function this specification serves given
that the RBridge Channel Protocol registry has a range reserved already for
private use and that the document doesn't specify any requirements around
vendor-specific protocol semantics. So any implementation of this that needs to
interoperate with another implementation will need to do so according to some
specification generated by the vendor, and that specification can select a code
point from the private use range. What does allocating a single code point for
all such vendor-specific protocols achieve, aside from specifying a structured
way of conveying the OUI/CID (which seems superfluous anyway for multiple
implementations from a single vendor interoperating with each other)?


I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that the text in the Acknowledgements section
is not appropriate. See RFC 7322.