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

Thomas Narten <> Tue, 15 May 2012 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F6D21F862B for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJn2t0cafPcg for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3072D21F8629 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <> from <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:28:26 -0600
Received: from ( by ( with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:27:59 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014DE19D8052 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:27:47 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q4FARujL100860 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:27:57 -0600
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q4FAScZH027903 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:28:39 -0600
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q4FAScPG027872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 04:28:38 -0600
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q4FARs8U017402 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 06:27:55 -0400
Message-Id: <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <>
Comments: In-reply-to James Carlson <> message dated "Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:12 -0400."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:27:54 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12051510-3270-0000-0000-000006591C4A
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: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:28:28 -0000

James Carlson <> writes:

> 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.

IMO, this document is a straightforward TRILL encapsulation over Foo
document. I would expect TRILL to produce a number of these, one per
link technology. 

As long as such documents are scoped as how to run TRILL over a
specific technology, IMO, such documents should be taken on by this
WG. If we don't do it, who will? And we certainly want exactly one
document per foo technology...

> Determining whether it's needed or the right technical solution is
> further down the road.  If the wg determines that it's not right and
> can't fix it, then it can terminate the work that it steers.  Adoption
> doesn't mean "we're committed to publishing this."

That is the theory. Sadly, in practice, taking on a document as a WG
item often does imply a committment to publish. I've seen plenty of
WGs make the argument that taking a document on is not a committment
to publish, and then later see a real reluctance to abandon a document
that has limited if any real support.

To be clear, I support taking on this particular document because I
believe this is a good example of the kind of document that should be
squarely within scope. However, I also agree with Tissa's general

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <> writes:

> 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.

This WG has too many documents to deal with and we are to some extent
thrashing. Any WG has a finite amount of WG cycles. I continue to
worry generally that our cycles are spread too thinly across too many
documents. While I support taking on draft-mrw-trill-over-ip, it is
far from clear to me that it needs to be a priority item for the WG.