Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

James Carlson <> Mon, 14 May 2012 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2521F8452 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bt1pWpfp+txy for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C2621F845D for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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: <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:12 -0400
From: James Carlson <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC--Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: Erik Nordmark <>,
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 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: 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         <>