Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Thomas Narten <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> I believe we have discussed these scenarios (different solution
> >> types) previously.  WG should reach consensus and move forward with
> >> the agreed solution.  Atleast from the IETF WG sessions, I presumed
> >> there was a consensus on the solution.  Am I wrong in that
> >> assumption?
> > 
> > what "solution" are you referring above as maybe having consensus?

> Cmt draft

If you mean draft-ietf-trill-cmt-01.txt, I at least am not in
agreement.

I have several issues with the document.

For starters, it's incomplete. It needs to be paired with another
document to get an actual "standard" you can implement. We don't have
such a companion document yet.  It's been suggested that
draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname-04.txt is one such document. But
that document is not a WG document and I'm not sure what its status
is. (And it needs work...)

As a general rule (not TRILL specific) I don't like WGs doing "partial
work" where they standardize one document, that is incomplete by
itself, independent of other documents that are needed to produce a
complete implementable solution to some real problem.

I've raised issues on the list about CMT and its unclarity
wrt. LAG/MC-LAG, etc. I did not really get my questions answered.

What I'd really like to start with on CMT is a clear problem
statement. I.e., exactly what problem/use case it is trying to
solve. I have not been able to get that out of the two  documents.

As for draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname-04.txt, I have other
concerns. E.g., it talks about tunneling at one point, but that is
completely unspecified.

What I don't want to do is spend a lot of time on the *solution*
details. I first want a clear problem statement/use case. Without
that, it is difficult to assess how well potential solutions address
the stated problem.

Thomas