Re: [trill] Should we adopt draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-05.txt as a WG document?

Donald Eastlake <> Sat, 07 July 2012 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB3621F84B8 for <>; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.526
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MF9zJv9eypDU for <>; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B535D21F84B6 for <>; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so19263317obb.31 for <>; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=z6K73c7/h55btKLUhJ6E7Pa51WMSYVC8I+BIpP4R0Fs=; b=bxGjfhPwtLItl2OkY+l35UR4JJ5WOWAMg60FQujhbiG3AgmkBT0RGxcTTNJ+5Wppus qsFqKAIPEiM5on4nF1CjVSvM9f/cjhmjyjjk9fWrJ5iFSpAMbgOj25pk2Q3KTqdsGZWT Ld5FvFA+w+e0Sw7MKFfNr7wEULoAvlnk4EI5nC7FrsWR2ybbc6v8IFItE6WFzgvP1IWP BZvadvD4NUJSvBQAzTS9TLB8rYR1EDj5l7up/IPml2wEZrYBm4ZzxCTPUN+35fapEaCW 61olnZhzd8oEnCcyxLy3Ue0b6dU86kduN2TEie+zcNCxjZdBkAw/xPmUki5sYetwD4L1 3TFw==
Received: by with SMTP id ut1mr5256807igc.50.1341697994314; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:52:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Erik Nordmark <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we adopt draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-05.txt as 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: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:52:56 -0000

Hi Tissa,

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
<> wrote:
> Dear All
> I have some clarifications and suggestions.
> 1. Currently TRILL charter says the following
> "2) Development, within the TRILL protocol context, of requirements
> and specifications for broadcast/multicast (multi-destination) frame
> reduction; e.g., ARP/ND (Neighbor Discovery) reduction through use
> of the TRILL ESADI protocol."

ARP/ND is just an example of one type of multi-destination traffic and
ESADI is one mechanism that could help with ARP/ND reduction.

> I would like to propose to make this framework document a more
> generic document that address framework for "broadcast/multicast
> reduction in TRILL" and make ESADI and Directory assisted as part of
> that and also explain how they fit in to the overall framework.
> Otherwise it is kind of odd to have a framework for just one
> approach and not the other.

This document is the framework for directory assisted edge. Besides
that technique and ESADI, there is also multi-destination frame
reduction material in draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-04.txt
Section 4.2. If someone wants to do a draft talking about the general
problems of broadcast domain scaling, multi-destination frames, and
the like, that would be fine, but that doesn't seem like this draft.

> 2. Based on the TRILL WG web page this draft has a related IPR. If
> we are proposing to move this as a framework document to the WG
> status, it is important to clarify how the IPR applies to solutions
> coming from the framework. In general sense it may not be a good
> idea to have a framework document that has IPR restrictions. Because
> framework documents are too broad in scope.

<Comments As An Individual>
I don't see how much clarification could be done without an
undersireable amount of patent discussion. Anyone who wants to can go
look at the disclosure and the international patent application and
its initial rejection by the selected international search agency, all
of which are, I believe, a matter of public record.

Some people tell me that filing a disclosure against a framework
document just "isn't done" and you should only file against more
technical documents. I have looked at RFC 3979 and don't see any basis
forthat. If you have IPR that covers any part of the ideas in a draft,
even if it is a framework draft, it looks to me like your are required
to file. As the sole inventor and personal owner of the cited
international patent application and a co-author of the draft and a
holder of the office of WG Co-Chair, it seems to me that I should be
particularly careful to file disclosures, even in cases were where it
may not be so clear I am required to.
</Comments As An Individual>

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

> Thanks
> Tissa
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: [trill] Should we adopt draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge-05.txt as a WG document?
> <http://>
> We've discussed earlier versions of this document in the WG in the past, and it seems like useful information for a technique that helps with ARP and ND scaling. It does not include any protocol changes or extensions.
> The document is intended as an informational document (it says "Intended
> status: Standard Track" but that is incorrect) explaining how directories can fit into TRILL.
> Note that there is claimed IPR associated with the draft:
> <>
> Please send comments to the TRILL list before June 27.
> Thanks,
>    Erik