Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Donald Eastlake <> Wed, 07 March 2018 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2AC124BE8; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 20:12:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id feMu5-95V9p7; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 20:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D72126CC7; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 20:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h23so1464898iob.11; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:12:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eIlbr/+breaDAjdl/Psaf4fRSXsrXeg9xrtUcYCKLK8=; b=GSmiK3UlSawaOL/ugE1SY2EZ3mwvRCbzPQWDW6i7U6MX0PCivz/K6/YylHdZhoT+rO tBdmvNf3Ol1PdzYx7GrmAQaNyklQWgXVnw5SnWpnnrJxOoXKK6xSrHXp57WKCjTBBtas agPIN6vM7DUwnB6cRQesuX2ZF5epeg7FYAhxb/lNiCXnECHd187gVi/ODLjiXFEYbTFU bNLII4Ru90x+L1y4O2SRQD10ARRsrOwrZfMt1xHBsmAVy8jbTQuJqOdGqTHPMpo/Y9WS 6AFv68R6UHadzs3tDTvdx9kb5uLEAxednMcCHnINNRNszsO4gLckF+1mtYMN4fEASHEN HiDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eIlbr/+breaDAjdl/Psaf4fRSXsrXeg9xrtUcYCKLK8=; b=CszfSPJDI2xyn2dwOYMlrLlblnaBeWUBZ65jwmO/76FYsWL2UjU1h8yDr91eJ+O+1F LYZDtidv7cmsAghl/RiAvImDAPHv2ujZrEfnNVpZweEClbyuTKr5kFjKG4gSwY4BZGKb B7+aVedbnKSrlm2bNGxS2cdC0xy6FrYAWH+o2TA9AXSBl97uMyx+C7O93RqTbXrRDg1x oQdmBXz+gvR/AeFPo35XOX2I/0RYPr7yOCgRGTuuJJ6oKyAqyrvYpfgHqQm4Eaoz9VGz GA6ilTs9xUstxalWbGNZWfTxy/kWcATXSkjsrpl+5O7INmD0y90x32L3/xvru8Aya0Op 0CVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FY63LopjgXBnB/52PgnW5LU7xn+45tXjQBr36B+P2DSF1xAC8I fFg6y2roHyF9IUgU1aAhIFWnqfxI2Bdsc1+Uk09F0c2C
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv2HzFQ7vKFmMbv142ggIAVKlS8EaobmcDp/P9lxIPoyCO5dA416awriTBYP4d0ZWdBVFrojtTroj6VgUuu238=
X-Received: by with SMTP id w32mr24840845ioi.132.1520395919937; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:11:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 20:11:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:11:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Susan Hares <>,, trill IETF mailing list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 04:12:03 -0000

Hi Alissa,

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Alissa Cooper <> wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: Discuss
> ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm having trouble understanding what function this specification serves given
> that the RBridge Channel Protocol registry has a range reserved already for
> private use and that the document doesn't specify any requirements around
> vendor-specific protocol semantics. So any implementation of this that needs to
> interoperate with another implementation will need to do so according to some
> specification generated by the vendor, and that specification can select a code
> point from the private use range. What does allocating a single code point for
> all such vendor-specific protocols achieve, aside from specifying a structured
> way of conveying the OUI/CID (which seems superfluous anyway for multiple
> implementations from a single vendor interoperating with each other)?

What if two TRILL campuses using the same private code point for
incompatible purposes are accidentally interconnected?

What if someone wants to use TRILL switches from two different vendors
each of which uses the same private code point for incompatible
purposes? Say one vendor makes highly flexible/desirable edge TRILL
switches while the other make particularly cost effective core TRILL
switches or particularly nifty Level 1 / Level 2 border TRILL
switches, or whatever.

"private" code points seem pretty flakey compared with the more robust
mechanism in this draft.

Maybe this document should also depredate the use of private code points.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that the text in the Acknowledgements section
> is not appropriate. See RFC 7322.


 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA