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

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <> Mon, 14 May 2012 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF8D21F860B for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.863
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.736, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIs-tvy7KTwR for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C56521F859A for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1020; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336998930; x=1338208530; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=d9SOxmtHckMPcRw8l6rDJNNsWJj26NHTkyjfElUGfyY=; b=G8wra081mNFGyhVylq38AjQD39RegL65YqwGyaEyxIPjvfijZiOdoD/y TmFtIK9BR6jd5quKEDFSuES+6vaiOlpzWQkYJX0i71zw2ZcmXkQHfD2/q j2e2rqtoeHw7wvbPjZCwugXLAOxK+5E5uRsdJbmTurjcStGfyDCXMDySb M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,584,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="44611039"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 May 2012 12:35:10 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4ECZA9Q021594; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:35:10 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 May 2012 05:35:10 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 05:34:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
Thread-Index: Ac0v14OF2W91gDgpTRy9oRvF6ilJagB9fm5w
References: <>
From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
To: Erik Nordmark <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2012 12:35:10.0168 (UTC) FILETIME=[004CF580:01CD31CE]
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: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:35:31 -0000

I do not think we should rush this document to WG status. We should look
in a bigger picture i.e. what sorts of TRILL interconnects are needed
and then proceed accordingly.

We do not want too many solutions that implement subsets. It is a pain
for vendors and confusion for customers. What we need is a single
comprehensive solution that covers the problem spaces.

My vote is "NO" to move this document to WG status.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:38 PM
Subject: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG

The document is at

We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the

Please send comments to the list.

trill mailing list