Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - 2 week WG LC (5/29 to 6/12)

gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com> Sun, 07 June 2015 03:52 UTC

Return-Path: <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFE41A8729 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 20:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18gR6ubWzycr for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 20:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skyhighway.com (skyhighway.com [63.249.82.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F9781A872D for <trill@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 20:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Firefly.skyhighway.com (dsl-63-249-88-160.static.cruzio.com [63.249.88.160]) by skyhighway.com with ESMTP id t573qg1J066715 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <201506070352.t573qg1J066715@skyhighway.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:52:41 -0700
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
From: gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEEUKH_1toRqBr9+KDhwSr9XELL16fv80Op3eswziUM89g@mail.g mail.com>
References: <02e201d09a0c$47249810$d56dc830$@ndzh.com> <CAF4+nEEUKH_1toRqBr9+KDhwSr9XELL16fv80Op3eswziUM89g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/lcLQB0xLQpJIoBjgyQV0YYUVqo4>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - 2 week WG LC (5/29 to 6/12)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 03:52:44 -0000

I support this
gayle

At 08:26 PM 6/6/2015, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>This draft provides security for RBridge Channel messages, a feature
>missing from RFC 7178 whose absence caused some difficulty in getting
>RFC 7178 approved.
>
>I support this as a co-author.
>
>I am not aware of any IPR in this draft.
>
>Thanks,
>Donald
>=============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>
>On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:
> > This is to begin a 2 week WG LC for 
> draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 (5/29
> > to 6/12).  The authors (Donald, Mohammed, Yizhou) should send a note to the
> > list indicating whether they know if any IPR.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can access the draft at:
> >
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/
> >
> >
> >
> > A summary of the document is:
> >
> >    The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
> >
> >    protocol includes an optional mechanism, called RBridge Channel, that
> >
> >    is specified in RFC 7178, for the transmission of typed messages
> >
> >    between TRILL switches in the same campus and between TRILL switches
> >
> >    and end stations on the same link. This document specifies two
> >
> >    optional extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol: (1) A standard
> >
> >    method to tunnel a variety of payload types by encapsulating them in
> >
> >    an RBridge Channel message; and (2) A method to support security
> >
> >    facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This document updates RFC
> >
> >    7178.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please answer the following questions:
> >
> > 1)      Does this draft enhance RFC7178 and is it ready for WG LC?
> >
> > 2)      Do you have any concerns regarding the mechanisms?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sue
>
>_______________________________________________
>trill mailing list
>trill@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill