Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 14 May 2012 15:11 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C7E21F87D7 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.914, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gS5cIHLvRidz for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202CD21F8723 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.96] (pool-71-105-89-105.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.89.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4EFB6W4016648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FB1208B.8070103@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:07 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
References: <4FADB0E8.1090000@acm.org> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF33@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com> <4FB100EC.9090203@workingcode.com> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF43@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com> <4FB116D4.8060008@workingcode.com> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF89@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF89@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, trill@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:11:38 -0000
Regarding this approach, I'm also wondering why TRILL-over-IP? Since TRILL is over ethernet, and ethernet is over IP, why is a specific solution for TRILL over IP even needed? Seems like a lot of potential complexity to save 18 bytes. Joe On 5/14/2012 8:04 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote: > Hi James > > I think we are agreeing on lots points except one important point i.e. > SHOULD or SHOULD NOT make individual submissions WG docs without a > strategy. > > My main objection of making individual submissions WG docs without well > thought through strategy is it takes away the focus and confuse WG, > customers and burden vendors. Additionally, TRILL WG should focus on the > priority items that was agreed in Taipei. Adding additional WG docs is > not helping anyways. I am in the opinion that WG should identify > priority Work areas, then form strategy around it, bring together > different ideas to form well thought through solutions. > > Secondly, it seems you are in the opinion that to get WG input the draft > need to be WG document. I disagree with that. A draft does not need to > be in WG status to get WG feedback. Authors should solicit feedback > through the mailing list. Making a WG status is not going to change > that. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carlson [mailto:carlsonj@workingcode.com] > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:30 AM > To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) > Cc: Erik Nordmark; trill@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG > document? > > Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote: >> That sounds a bit backwards to me. >> >> [Answer] Doing small piecemeal work, is not the right approach. > > We might agree on that point, but it's not the question at hand. The > question at hand is whether to adopt a draft. > >> The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe >> the only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants >> (and the authors want) to steer the document by the working group >> consensus process. >> >> [Answer] Good point, I re-read the charter one more time and there is >> no where it says TRILL over IP or other encapsulation, so it seems the > >> document is not in charter. Please could you point to the WG, which >> line item in charter that qualifies this work to be in scope ? >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/trill/charter/ > > Sure: > > "This includes a MIB module and > other pieces needed for operations, but also additional ways to extend > and optimize TRILL for the properties of the networks on which it is > deployed." > > This seems to me to be an additional way to extend TRILL for the > property of a network -- specifically, an IP network. > > Granted, I'm not thrilled about the idea of adding a new means to reach > mutual encapsulation. I assume the authors have a good reason to do > this, and have interesting ideas on how and why it should be done. The > important point is that I think this working group is the best possible > forum to air those ideas. > >> [Answer] IETF tradition has been to start with a problem space and >> create a common solution not making every draft that is in scope of >> charter a WG document. Your point on "too many solutions" exactly that > >> is my point having subset of solutions finally leads to too many small > >> pieces. > > Some efforts do indeed follow that simple linear path -- idea, BOF, > charter, WG, publication. But that's certainly not the only path, nor > perhaps even the most common. Adoption by an existing WG of new > in-scope documents is something that I view as crucially important to > continued WG viability. Without it, protocols just grow like weeds as > new extensions are otherwise developed, deployed, and documented without > the help of WG consensus using the individual-submission RFC publication > track. > > Failing to adopt does not foreclose publication of an RFC describing > this extension, nor any other work by the authors. It simply > disconnects the WG from the process. > > Sending TRILL over IP off to the individual-submission world without WG > input would, I think, be a poor result of this exercise. I've been > through that problem as PPPEXT chair, and it's no fun. >
- [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Eric Gray
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Ralph Droms
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Ralph Droms
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Russ White