Re: [trill] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-directory-framework-01.txt

I've never been fond of "framework" documents, but this is fine for
describing the problem.  If it's supposed to be complete in some sense
(whatever that means for a "framework"), it's missing some things that
people suggested last week, e.g., the ability to be informed of an ACL
policy, to make, e.g., a hypervisor have an endnode table that has (IP
address, MAC address, TRILL switch address, only allowed from this set of
MAC addresses).

And there might be other information we'd want pushed or pulled, e.g., IPv4
and IPv6 address.

Is it clear that the framework document doesn't preclude these extra things
even though I don't think they are in the draft?

Do we really need a framework document instead of just a single WG document
on formats and algorithms that perhaps has a few paragraphs to explain why
a directory is useful?

Radia

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> wrote:

>
> We would really like to she some more explicit indications from WG
> participants that they have read this document and agree with it.
>
> Please include any substantial as well as editorial improvements that
> result from reviewing the document.
>
>    Erik
>
>
> On 10/25/12 3:55 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
>> This message begins a TRILL WG two week Last Call on the
>> draft-ietf-trill-directory-**framework draft.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>   155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>   d3e3e3@gmail.com
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> trill mailing list
>> trill@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/trill<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/trill<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>
>