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

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <> Mon, 14 May 2012 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7860C21F8763 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.165
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.434, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u06HNxEWsAGb for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1031A21F88BD for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2044; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337022377; x=1338231977; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=q5qV/n00qtgcEXNAR8GXPWbQxM0lJ/OSYcio57gpsSU=; b=BLI0TEBuLI4FHzpebracamqymxRmx3mh5hKmqEDxXLK6YzeOcPgPHnym lKJMgbU1NNsScOLB9YCf7+n9DNWPcnfn3/Anezq5MSAOjkq957aZbHSKv e4H5/QFe/IQ41RvhPb8BvFjOAOvnW9HNl2Uc7ZxdlQ4CQergsn17LUY6T I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,588,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="42181155"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 May 2012 19:06:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4EJ6FQN025237; Mon, 14 May 2012 19:06:15 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:15 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
Thread-Index: Ac0x+CouBBXNAN0uR6i8ek02Z35wrwABzP2A
References: <> <>
From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
To: Radia Perlman <>, Erik Nordmark <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2012 19:06:15.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2A961C0:01CD3204]
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: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:06:19 -0000

Hi Radia

If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then this draft is not generic. 

If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header. 

If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.

Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Erik Nordmark
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.

So, I think it should be a WG document.


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <> wrote:
> The document is at
> We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.
> Please send comments to the list.
>   Erik
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
trill mailing list