Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> Mon, 14 May 2012 12:56 UTC
Return-Path: <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2521F8452 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bt1pWpfp+txy for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carlson.workingcode.com (carlsonj-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C2621F845D for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.50.23.149] (gate.abinitio.com [65.170.40.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by carlson.workingcode.com (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4ECuCjY011619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4FB100EC.9090203@workingcode.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:12 -0400
From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
References: <4FADB0E8.1090000@acm.org> <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF33@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <344037D7CFEFE84E97E9CC1F56C5F4A5011CAF33@xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC--Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, trill@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:56:20 -0000
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. 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 process. 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. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
- [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… James Carlson
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Radia Perlman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Eric Gray
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Ralph Droms
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Ralph Droms
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-i… Russ White