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

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

[Removed content which is not relavent]

>> 
>>> None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need
>>> to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will
>>> respond a bit below:
>> %sam- does this mean, the poll being undertaken is a moot point? If so, why to ask the WG for adoption?
> 
> Yes, it is moot. When the question was asked, this was not realized.
There are multiple drafts addressing TRILL interconnect, which means TRILL over something. These drafts include TRILL over IP as well.
What does this decision mean for those drafts, which includes TRILL over IP as well?
> 
> Not at all. I'm saying that when you design a native way of doing X
> over Y, you typically get a better result that when you say "we will
> do X over Y by just using the Generic over Y existing protocol and
> doing X over Generic over Y". Let me give a specific example: GRE.
> Lots of things use GRE but if you look at the GRE RFC 2784, it says:
>   "In attempting to be more general, many protocol specific
>   nuances have been ignored [in GRE]. The result is that this proposal
>   may be less suitable for a situation where a specific "X over Y"
>   encapsulation has been described."
If layering is the problem, then we would not be talking about NVGRE etc technologies, which are built over it. My point is, just because there is generic layer, does not discount X over generic over Y, because there are other advantages which comes along with that.
> 
> Another specific example of something that can get fuzzed and produce
> inferior results due to generic middle levels of protocol is MTU
> handling.
%SAM - It goes both ways. MTU issue and defragmentation, packet re-order are some other issues which comes along with IP.
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Last time I looked, I believe it only did that for TRILL Data frames,
> not TRILL IS-IS frames.
Correct. The current PBB-EVPN do not process IS-IS control frames.

-sam
> 
> Donald
> 
>> Sam
>>> 
>>>> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.
>>>> 
>>>> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?
>>> 
>>> That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft
>>> that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised
>>> objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your
>>> hands is not a way to get standards done.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>> =============================
>>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>  [e-mail]
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
>>>> To: Erik Nordmark
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
>>>> And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I think it should be a WG document.
>>>> 
>>>> Radia
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document is at
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-trill-over-ip/
>>>>> 
>>>>> We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Erik
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> trill mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> trill mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> trill mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> trill mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill