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

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <> Mon, 14 May 2012 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBC821F86BE for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 06:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.95
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ylBU5DXZKex for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 06:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D1E21F86BA for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 06:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2639; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337001341; x=1338210941; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=TL/L2+hmQa231FgbV57r0j5XiZz7FCS4TZXHMmehnjY=; b=NAD81RnVGgIxcnjtvNKSuDFmwg5qAd0tbgKo/pV35WkX5TB1JetW227b UyI1CkgXvEWlzlzQc7JKGTUPHCj2HZO6eShbk34J2fXqalj6JoSOTBJDl oXPk1duM0XjiAAJppcfHO3eoq5wcj8iWg/LoIrFYCMgz03gPiwgntIbKu I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,586,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="41592896"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 May 2012 13:15:40 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4EDFe4b003196; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:15:40 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 May 2012 06:15:40 -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 06:15:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
Thread-Index: Ac0x0PieleNiDd5ZStKKsS1u3Zj9UgAAC5LA
References: <> <> <>
From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
To: James Carlson <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2012 13:15:40.0669 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8FDFAD0:01CD31D3]
Cc: Erik Nordmark <>,
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 13:15:42 -0000

Hi James 

I am not clear with your point though, you indicated lead to "too many
solutions", which is exactly the issue. 

please see my comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:56 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Cc: Erik Nordmark;
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG

Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:
> 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.

That sounds a bit backwards to me.

[Answer] Doing small piecemeal work, is not the right approach. 
The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe the
only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants (and the
authors want) to steer the document by the working group consensus

[Answer] Good point, I re-read the charter one more time and there is no
where it says TRILL over IP or other encapsulation, so it seems the
document is not in charter. Please could you point to the WG, which line
item in charter that qualifies this work to be in scope ?

Determining whether it's needed or the right technical solution is
further down the road.  If the wg determines that it's not right and
can't fix it, then it can terminate the work that it steers.  Adoption
doesn't mean "we're committed to publishing this."

I think leaving work that is in the scope of the working group outside
the wg merely because some higher-level planning is contemplated is not
a good idea, and not keeping with IETF tradition.  It invites exactly
the sort of "too many solutions" problems that the poster refers to, as
the rejected authors seek out other venues -- including individual
submission -- to pursue the work.

[Answer] IETF tradition has been to start with a problem space and
create a common solution not making every draft that is in scope of
charter a WG document. Your point on "too many solutions" exactly that
is my point having subset of solutions finally leads to too many small
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <>