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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On May 15, 2012, at 6:54 AM 5/15/12, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> Just FYI -- I am one of the authors of draft-mrw-trill-over-ip, so obviously I have an interest in the outcome here.
> 
> On May 14, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> 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:
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by "we need to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft"?  I can think of two things you might mean.

I meant a third thing (quoting from previous e-mail):

draft-mrw-trill-over-ip is not out of scope, it's just not on the current list of deliverables for the working group.  The core charter of the working group is still OK but the list of deliverables is more than a year old.  Some have been completed, some have seen some progress but are late, some have not been addressed at all.  It's appropriate for the WG to revisit the list of deliverables, decide what documents are core and revise the charter appropriately.

- Ralph

> 
> (1) TRILL over Foo documents would fall into this part of the charter,
> 
> "...but also additional ways to
> extend and optimize TRILL for the properties of the networks on
> which it is deployed."
> 
> but we need to add a milestone for TRILL over IP which you and the chairs can easily do if the WG agrees it wants to do this work.  This makes sense to me.
> 
> OR
> 
> (2) The above sentence would not cover TRILL over Foo documents, and we would need to do a completely new charter to cover them.  This doesn't make sense to me for two reasons:  (a) TRILL over Foo documents are pretty clearly going to be needed, and need to be done in the TRILL WG, and (b) I'm not sure what else would fall more firmly under the notion of "extend ... TRILL for the properties ... of the networks on which will be deployed".
> 
> Whatever your intent, if we _did_ somehow manage to charter a WG where the work needed to encapsulate the core protocol in IP _doesn't_ fall in the WG charter, could we please fix that?
> 
> I understand that we aren't done with the discussion of whether or not the WG wants to adopt this particular draft for that purpose, but the decisions about whether to encapsulate TRILL in IP, and if so, how do it, clearly need to be made in the TRILL WG, not through the individual or independent submission paths (which is what tends to happen when existing, nearly complete documents are declared out-of-scope for any IETF WG).
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>