Re: [trill] review of Trill over UDP/IP

[Caitlin Bestler <[e-mail]>]

> On 7/15/2014 9:49 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> >
> >  >
> >  > > Plus, I’d know the reason why choosing UDP? I cannot find any in
> > the draft –
> >  > > but I am sure there are reasons discussed in the group. :-)
> >  >
> >  > This was discussed at IETF 89 and the consensus there was confirmed on
> >  > the mailing list. See
> >  > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06206.html
> >  > You could look at the minutes at
> >  > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-trill or listen
> >  > to the audio recording.
> >  >
> > Shouldn't that rationale be captured in the draft itself?
> 
> What rationale? I asked why we needed another "X over IP draft" during 
> this email consensus check, and got dead air in response.
> 
> Also, apparently the IESG agreed to make this a WG item. I'd recommend 
> asking them for their specific rationale too.
> 
> Joe

We're in violent agreement here.

At first glance, generic mechanism for tunneling Ethernet should be applicable without the need for any additional RFCs.

If there is a justificatiaon for standardizing a speciallized method of tunneling then the rationale as to why this is superior to generic tunneling should be presented in the draft/RFC itself.

What is not at all clear to me is whether there are special factors that make a distributed L2 campus unified over long-haul L3 tunnels special just because the L2 campus is using Trill.

I'm not violently opposed to such an idea, but I would expect to find a succint justification in-line in the draft .