Re: [trill] Should we adopt draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-05.txt as a WG document?

As an informational framework-like draft, I support WG adoption of this draft.

There are likely to be opportunities to use the same protocol(s) for directory
access as nvo3 will use, with differences based on encapsulation differences
(trill needs identify and address the remote RBridge at layer 2, nvo3 needs
to identify and address the remote NVE at layer 3).

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: trill-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Erik
> Nordmark
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:48 PM
> To: trill@ietf.org
> Subject: [trill] Should we adopt draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-
> 05.txt as a WG document?
> 
> 
> <http://http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-
> 05>
> 
> We've discussed earlier versions of this document in the WG in the past,
> and it seems like useful information for a technique that helps with ARP
> and ND scaling. It does not include any protocol changes or extensions.
> 
> The document is intended as an informational document (it says "Intended
> status: Standard Track" but that is incorrect) explaining how
> directories can fit into TRILL.
> 
> Note that there is claimed IPR associated with the draft:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1788/>
> 
> Please send comments to the TRILL list before June 27.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Erik
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill