Re: [rbridge] [Isis-wg] Progressing draft-ietf-isis-trill

Erik -

We are covering old ground.

No I was not informed of the agreement you mention below - and in fact I
inquired when last call was started on draft-ietf-isis-trill as to what
to expect in the document and I was told otherwise.

Now, we can spend a bunch of cycles trying to track down who to blame
for this confusion - but this is not helpful. There does seem to be
agreement now that both a normative description of the protocol process
changes and the TLV codepoints should be reviewed by IS-IS WG. I would
prefer that this be done in one document - but if two documents is the
format chosen so be it.

What I am not willing to do is pass final judgment on the TLV codepoint
document (draft-ietf-isis-trill) independently of a review of the
protocol process specification - for reasons I have already stated.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:erik.nordmark@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:55 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Ralph Droms; rbridge@postel.org; isis list mailing; int-
> ads@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Progressing draft-ietf-isis-trill
> 
> On 11/10/10 08:29 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > Erik -
> >
> > My concern in regards to the proposed use of two documents
> > (draft-ietf-trill-adj/draft-ietf-isis-trill) has nothing to do with
> > "process" - which you discuss in detail below. It has to do with the
> > interdependence of the content. When defining extensions to the
IS-IS
> > protocol it is necessary to define the new protocol behaviors and to
> > define the new TLVs, sub-TLVs, etc. that are used in support of the
> new
> > behaviors. To separate the two into different documents is arbitrary
> and
> > illogical. Until the review of the protocol behavior is completed we
> > cannot know if the current definition of the TLVs is complete and
> > accurate. And until the review of the TLVs is completed we cannot
> know
> > whether the protocol behavior description is complete and accurate.
> Thus
> > the separation makes life more difficult for both the reviewers and
> the
> > authors - and ultimately makes the use of the document(s) as a
> reference
> > more difficult.
> 
> The protocol behavior for TRILL is specified in
> draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol, and not in a draft-ietf-isis-trill.
> That was the reason we asked the ISIS WG to review that document
> several
> times over several years. As has been stated in the past, there was an
> agreement between the INT and RTG ADs and the TRILL and ISIS co-chairs
> to do the ISIS code points and TLV formats in the ISIS WG.
> 
> The new draft-ietf-trill-adj is split from
> draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol due to the extremely late review
> comments we received as I specified in my email.
> 
> I don't think it is uncommon to have code points and formats be
> reviewed
> separately in the IETF. For example, some new protocol might require
> some new DHCP option which would be reviewed in the DHC WG.
> 
> Having reviewed protocol documents in the IETF for a number of years
> that doesn't seem like a big deal.
> 
> > I used the example of RFC 5303 - but one could look at any of the
> RFCs
> > that have been produced by the IS-IS WG (as well as other WGs) over
> the
> > years. No one has chosen to make such a separation - and I think for
> > very good reasons.
> >
> > I believe the goal at this time is to provide the IS-IS WG with the
> > opportunity to review the changes to the IS-IS protocol which are
> > required by TRILL.
> 
> That opportunity started in 2008 (and we did receive some comments
back
> then) and concluded with the last call in ISIS in January 2010.
> 
> > In regards to the history you present below, I will only say that an
> > expectation was explicitly set as far back as draft-ward-l2isis-xx
> (back
> > in 2005!!) that all extensions to the IS-IS protocol in support of
> the
> > L2 technologies would be defined in an IS-IS WG draft. In more
recent
> > times we had draft-ietf-isis-layer2-xx and now L2 technology
specific
> > documents. My assumption has always been that once the various L2
> > technologies had reached a level of maturity that they would add the
> > normative description of changes to the IS-IS protocol processes to
> an
> > IS-IS document along with the TLV definitions as this has been the
> > normal practice with all other protocol extensions as noted above.
> 
> The ISIS chair agreed to only have code points and TLV formats in ISIS
> with the blessings of the RTG and INT ADs.
> Were you not informed of this agreement?
> 
>    Erik

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge@postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge