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

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: trill-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Erik Nordmark
Cc: trill@ietf.org
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.

Radia

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> wrote:
>
> The document is at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-trill-over-ip/
>
> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill