Re: [trill] draft-mme-trill-fcoe as an independent submission

While I don't see any value in having this as a
working group document, I don't have any objections
to have it published as an individual submission.

Anoop

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mme-trill-fcoe/ was briefly
> presented to the TRILL WG at the Quebec City IETF-81 meeting. I'll
> paste an extract from the minutes at the end of this email.
>
> There have been three references to this draft on the TRILL WG mailing
> list (before this message), none of which produced any response:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01473.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01489.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01643.html
>
> The draft is being processed by the RFC Independent Submissions Editor
> and is awaiting a determination by the IESG as to whether the draft
> does or does not conflict with ongoing work in the IETF such as that
> of the TRILL WG. Based on the current state of the IESG ballt
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-mme-trill-fcoe/ballot/),
> I request further WG discussion of whether or not this draft should be
> a TRILL WG draft and whether or not it conflicts with work in the
> TRILL WG.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>
> Extract from Minutes of TRILL WG at IETF-81:
>
> FCoE over TRILL, David Melman (Marvell), Tal Mizrahi (Marvell)
> draft-mme-trill-fcoe-00.txt
>
> (very limited time because earlier presentations and discussion ran
> over)
>
> Tal Mizrahi (Marvell): This draft is intended for
> informational. ... selected slides ...
>
> Anoop Ghanwani: Are you changing the TRILL header hop-by-hop.
>
> Donald: The frame is being TRILL encapsulated and decapsulated at each
> hop.
>
> Anoop: So the TRILL Header isn't doing anything. The whole path is
> computed by FCSP. If you are running both control planes, why have the
> TRILL Header at all.
>
> Tal: There is a slide on that: not all RBridges are FCRBs. In that
> case, you still want the TRILL clouds to do optimal routing.
>
> Puneet Agarwal (Broadcom): I don't see what this does other than state
> the obvious. FCoE is running over TRILL. Why do you need a draft for
> that?
>
> Tal: We are just showing how they work together.
>
> Puneet: So, should I do a draft on IP routing over TRILL?
>
> Donald: It is a little different because you would normally have the
> routers at the edge but here you have the Fiber Channel devices
> distributed throughout the TRILL cloud with a savings in cabling and
> cabinetry. If the FC is external to the TRILL cloud, then typically
> you have to transit the TRILL cloud twice. So, it is a way of doing
> it. If you think this draft has no value, so be it. If the WG thinks
> that way, then it shouldn't be a working group draft.
>
> Puneet: OK. I don't think it should be a working group draft.
>
> Donald: Well, we are out of time. Thanks everyone and see you in
> Taiwan.
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill