Subject: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:11:58 -0400

Thanks, Russ! 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Russ White
--> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:06 AM
--> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
--> Hash: SHA1
--> 
--> 
--> I've looked these over, and sent some comments to Eric, but 
--> I think, in
--> general, they are fine to accept as WG docs.
--> 
--> :-)
--> 
--> Russ
--> 
--> Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
--> > Hi,
--> > 
--> > We don't think there have been any comments on the list, since the
--> > message below, about the two drafts mentioned. Please, could a few
--> > people take a look and post to the list?
--> > 
--> > We will wait another week or so for comments.
--> > 
--> > Thanks,
--> > 
--> >        Donald and Erik
--> > 
--> > -----Original Message-----
--> > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:erik.nordmark at sun.com] 
--> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:54 PM
--> > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> > Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
--> > Subject: Ready to accept as WG documents?
--> > 
--> > At the IETF meeting in Dallas we discussed the two 
--> documents below, but
--> > when it came to asking whether we should accept them as 
--> WG documents
--> > there was a very small number of people that had read them.
--> > 
--> > I know that some people read them and provided comments after the
--> > meeting ended.
--> > 
--> > For those that haven't read them, I'd suggest you have a 
--> look whether
--> > they are on the right path. They are not likely to be a 
--> finished product
--> > now, but we want to understand whether they are in the 
--> right direction
--> > before we accept them as WG documents and have them 
--> edited into shape.
--> > 
--> > So please read and comment on the mailing list, (and 
--> those that have
--> > already read them can skip the first step  :-)
--> > 
--> > We'll look at the input a week from today and see how many have
--> > commented. Thus it is IMPORTANT that you say "looks ok" 
--> if you've read
--> > it and thinks it is a good starting point for the WG's 
--> deliverable.
--> > 
--> > Note that this is NOT a WG last call - we just want to 
--> make sure that
--> > the WG is comfortable using these documents as starting 
--> points for the
--> > WG deliverables in question; I'm sure there are and will 
--> be open issues
--> > to resolve before the documents can be finished.
--> > 
--> > The documents are
--> > 	draft-gray-trill-rbridge-arch-00.txt
--> > 	draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-00.txt
--> > 
--> >      Erik and Donald
--> > _______________________________________________
--> > rbridge mailing list
--> > rbridge at postel.org
--> > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
--> 
--> - --
--> riw at cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
--> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
--> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
--> 
--> iD8DBQFEU2SzER27sUhU9OQRAq1QAJ474JMPIRI9eueHU8WcCSKK/GEkVACgi/b/
--> iCAhHjtdqrOk0ueiAvplMkM=
--> =rU82
--> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--> _______________________________________________
--> rbridge mailing list
--> rbridge at postel.org
--> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
--> 

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:11:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3333

Thanks, Russ! 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] 
--> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ White
--> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:06 AM
--> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
--> Hash: SHA1
--> 
--> 
--> I've looked these over, and sent some comments to Eric, but 
--> I think, in
--> general, they are fine to accept as WG docs.
--> 
--> :-)
--> 
--> Russ
--> 
--> Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
--> > Hi,
--> > 
--> > We don't think there have been any comments on the list, since the
--> > message below, about the two drafts mentioned. Please, could a few
--> > people take a look and post to the list?
--> > 
--> > We will wait another week or so for comments.
--> > 
--> > Thanks,
--> > 
--> >        Donald and Erik
--> > 
--> > -----Original Message-----
--> > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:54 PM
--> > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> > Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
--> > Subject: Ready to accept as WG documents?
--> > 
--> > At the IETF meeting in Dallas we discussed the two 
--> documents below, but
--> > when it came to asking whether we should accept them as 
--> WG documents
--> > there was a very small number of people that had read them.
--> > 
--> > I know that some people read them and provided comments after the
--> > meeting ended.
--> > 
--> > For those that haven't read them, I'd suggest you have a 
--> look whether
--> > they are on the right path. They are not likely to be a 
--> finished product
--> > now, but we want to understand whether they are in the 
--> right direction
--> > before we accept them as WG documents and have them 
--> edited into shape.
--> > 
--> > So please read and comment on the mailing list, (and 
--> those that have
--> > already read them can skip the first step  :-)
--> > 
--> > We'll look at the input a week from today and see how many have
--> > commented. Thus it is IMPORTANT that you say "looks ok" 
--> if you've read
--> > it and thinks it is a good starting point for the WG's 
--> deliverable.
--> > 
--> > Note that this is NOT a WG last call - we just want to 
--> make sure that
--> > the WG is comfortable using these documents as starting 
--> points for the
--> > WG deliverables in question; I'm sure there are and will 
--> be open issues
--> > to resolve before the documents can be finished.
--> > 
--> > The documents are
--> > 	draft-gray-trill-rbridge-arch-00.txt
--> > 	draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-00.txt
--> > 
--> >      Erik and Donald
--> > _______________________________________________
--> > rbridge mailing list
--> > [email-masked]
--> > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
--> 
--> - --
--> [email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
--> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
--> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
--> 
--> iD8DBQFEU2SzER27sUhU9OQRAq1QAJ474JMPIRI9eueHU8WcCSKK/GEkVACgi/b/
--> iCAhHjtdqrOk0ueiAvplMkM=
--> =rU82
--> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--> _______________________________________________
--> rbridge mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
--> 

Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:05:55 -0400
From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2504

I've looked these over, and sent some comments to Eric, but I think, in
general, they are fine to accept as WG docs.

:-)

Russ

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We don't think there have been any comments on the list, since the
> message below, about the two drafts mentioned. Please, could a few
> people take a look and post to the list?
> 
> We will wait another week or so for comments.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>        Donald and Erik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:54 PM
> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Subject: Ready to accept as WG documents?
> 
> At the IETF meeting in Dallas we discussed the two documents below, but
> when it came to asking whether we should accept them as WG documents
> there was a very small number of people that had read them.
> 
> I know that some people read them and provided comments after the
> meeting ended.
> 
> For those that haven't read them, I'd suggest you have a look whether
> they are on the right path. They are not likely to be a finished product
> now, but we want to understand whether they are in the right direction
> before we accept them as WG documents and have them edited into shape.
> 
> So please read and comment on the mailing list, (and those that have
> already read them can skip the first step  :-)
> 
> We'll look at the input a week from today and see how many have
> commented. Thus it is IMPORTANT that you say "looks ok" if you've read
> it and thinks it is a good starting point for the WG's deliverable.
> 
> Note that this is NOT a WG last call - we just want to make sure that
> the WG is comfortable using these documents as starting points for the
> WG deliverables in question; I'm sure there are and will be open issues
> to resolve before the documents can be finished.
> 
> The documents are
> 	draft-gray-trill-rbridge-arch-00.txt
> 	draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-00.txt
> 
>      Erik and Donald
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

- --
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:11:10 -0400
From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [rbridge] FW: Ready to accept as WG documents?
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1760

Hi,

We don't think there have been any comments on the list, since the
message below, about the two drafts mentioned. Please, could a few
people take a look and post to the list?

We will wait another week or so for comments.

Thanks,

       Donald and Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:54 PM
To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Subject: Ready to accept as WG documents?

At the IETF meeting in Dallas we discussed the two documents below, but
when it came to asking whether we should accept them as WG documents
there was a very small number of people that had read them.

I know that some people read them and provided comments after the
meeting ended.

For those that haven't read them, I'd suggest you have a look whether
they are on the right path. They are not likely to be a finished product
now, but we want to understand whether they are in the right direction
before we accept them as WG documents and have them edited into shape.

So please read and comment on the mailing list, (and those that have
already read them can skip the first step  :-)

We'll look at the input a week from today and see how many have
commented. Thus it is IMPORTANT that you say "looks ok" if you've read
it and thinks it is a good starting point for the WG's deliverable.

Note that this is NOT a WG last call - we just want to make sure that
the WG is comfortable using these documents as starting points for the
WG deliverables in question; I'm sure there are and will be open issues
to resolve before the documents can be finished.

The documents are
	draft-gray-trill-rbridge-arch-00.txt
	draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-00.txt

     Erik and Donald

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:48:07 -0400
From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [rbridge] Confirmation of WG consensus
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1038

Hi,

There having been no negative comments, these drafts are now working
group drafts and should be re-submitted with draft-ietf-trill-... file
names.

	Donald and Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:54 PM
To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Subject: Confirmation of WG consensus

At the IETF meeting in Dallas there was consensus in the room to adopt
the following two documents as WG documents (meaning that future
revisions will be named draft-ietf-trill- and that they will appear on
the WG web page):
	draft-touch-trill-prob-00.txt
	draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-protocol-00.txt

Any objections or comments?

Note that the documents have some open issues, some of them being
discussed on the mailing list already, which will continue until the WG
considers the documents finish. Thus this was NOT a WG last call; just a
check whether the WG wants to consider the documents for its starting
point.

     Erik and Donald

To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:38:58 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>, Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [rbridge] FYI: Where IGMP snooping and multicast router discovery are written up
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 534

> draft-ietf-magma-snoop-12.txt

> is in the RFC editor queue, and has been for a while (2003-11-24).

FYI, the current state (from http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html) is:

> 2003-11-24 draft-ietf-magma-snoop-12.txt
> RFC-EDITOR
> M. Christensen, K. Kimball, F. Solensky
> Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches
> Bytes: 55086
> Working Group: Multicast and Anycast Group Membership

>From the key

 RFC-EDITOR = Pending rfc-editor final review before authors 48 hours

So, this doc really should be an RFC RSN.

Thomas 

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 00:09:32 -0400
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>, Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [rbridge] FYI: Where IGMP snooping and multicast router discovery are written up
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3030

Dear Radia;

On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> There's two documents that Bill Fenner pointed me to, and I will put
> pointers into
> the protocol draft (rather than duplicating all the mechanisms).
>
> One document explains how to find multicast routers. This is important
> because
> multicast packets and IGMP reports
> must be sent to each every link on which there is a multicast router.
>
> The multicast router discovery is explained in:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4286
> Since this is an RFC, so we don't have to duplicate what's in it,  
> and we can just
> point to it.
>
> The other document explains how to recognize IGMP packets of
> various sorts.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/magma/draft-ietf-magma-snoop/draft-ietf- 
> magma-snoop-12.txt
>
> It is unfortunately an internet draft, but hopefully it will become
> an RFC. Does anyone know whether it will? If it will, then we can  
> point to it, rather

The draft

draft-ietf-magma-snoop-12.txt

is in the RFC editor queue, and has been for a while (2003-11-24).

This was being held up because  of a reference to draft-ietf-magma- 
mrdisc AKA RFC 4286,
but this has now of course cleared up and I believe that now it's  
just  in the RFC ED backlog.

The co-chairs of MAGMA (cc'ed here) should know more, but I would  
guess it will be a numbered RFC very
soon now.

Regards
Marshall

> than duplicating the content. I'll have to read it carefully, but  
> it's possible RBridges
> will want to distribute the IGMP messages slightly differently than  
> bridges would,
> for instance, by announcing receivers in link state information  
> rather than
> learning it from forwarding IGMP announcements. IGMP announcements  
> still need to
> be forwarded, but only to links with multicast routers. The magma  
> draft says
> to only filter at the last hop, but since RBridges will be  
> informing each other of
> the location of multicast routers, IGMP reports can be suppressed  
> upstream, though
> this isn't a large optimization.
>
> Anyway, since RBridges can work a little differently from bridges,
> we can't just point
> to this document. On the other hand, it's real nice not to have to  
> explain the
> format of IGMP messages of various versions. If n documents in k  
> different working
> groups all try to do that, then if a new version of IGMP occurs, it  
> will be very
> difficult to find all affected documents.
>
> I'll read this document carefully and as much as possible point to  
> it rather than
> duplicating its content, but others may also want to read it and  
> think about what
> differences we might want in the RBridge world.
>
> Unless of course this isn't intended to ever be an RFC, in which  
> case we'll have
> to capture all the relevant content...I assume someone will let us  
> know the intention
> of the magma draft.
>
> Radia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:20:40 -0700
From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [rbridge] FYI: Where IGMP snooping and multicast router discovery are written up
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2227

There's two documents that Bill Fenner pointed me to, and I will put 
pointers into
the protocol draft (rather than duplicating all the mechanisms).

One document explains how to find multicast routers. This is important 
because
multicast packets and IGMP reports
must be sent to each every link on which there is a multicast router.

The multicast router discovery is explained in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4286
Since this is an RFC, so we don't have to duplicate what's in it, and we can just
point to it.

The other document explains how to recognize IGMP packets of
various sorts.

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/magma/draft-ietf-magma-snoop/draft-ietf-magma-snoop-12.txt

It is unfortunately an internet draft, but hopefully it will become
an RFC. Does anyone know whether it will? If it will, then we can point to it, rather
than duplicating the content. I'll have to read it carefully, but it's possible RBridges
will want to distribute the IGMP messages slightly differently than bridges would,
for instance, by announcing receivers in link state information rather than
learning it from forwarding IGMP announcements. IGMP announcements still need to
be forwarded, but only to links with multicast routers. The magma draft says
to only filter at the last hop, but since RBridges will be informing each other of
the location of multicast routers, IGMP reports can be suppressed upstream, though
this isn't a large optimization.

Anyway, since RBridges can work a little differently from bridges,
we can't just point
to this document. On the other hand, it's real nice not to have to explain the
format of IGMP messages of various versions. If n documents in k different working
groups all try to do that, then if a new version of IGMP occurs, it will be very
difficult to find all affected documents.

I'll read this document carefully and as much as possible point to it rather than
duplicating its content, but others may also want to read it and think about what
differences we might want in the RBridge world.

Unless of course this isn't intended to ever be an RFC, in which case we'll have
to capture all the relevant content...I assume someone will let us know the intention
of the magma draft.

Radia

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:54:07 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [rbridge] Ready to accept as WG documents?
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1274

At the IETF meeting in Dallas we discussed the two documents below, but
when it came to asking whether we should accept them as WG documents
there was a very small number of people that had read them.

I know that some people read them and provided comments after the
meeting ended.

For those that haven't read them, I'd suggest you have a look whether
they are on the right path. They are not likely to be a finished product
now, but we want to understand whether they are in the right direction
before we accept them as WG documents and have them edited into shape.

So please read and comment on the mailing list, (and those that have
already read them can skip the first step  :-)

We'll look at the input a week from today and see how many have
commented. Thus it is IMPORTANT that you say "looks ok" if you've read 
it and thinks it is a good starting point for the WG's deliverable.

Note that this is NOT a WG last call - we just want to make sure that 
the WG is comfortable using these documents as starting points for the 
WG deliverables in question; I'm sure there are and will be open issues 
to resolve before the documents can be finished.

The documents are
	draft-gray-trill-rbridge-arch-00.txt
	draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-00.txt

     Erik and Donald

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:53:52 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [rbridge] Confirmation of WG consensus
Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 645

At the IETF meeting in Dallas there was consensus in the room to adopt
the following two documents as WG documents (meaning that future
revisions will be named draft-ietf-trill- and that they will appear on
the WG web page):
	draft-touch-trill-prob-00.txt
	draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-protocol-00.txt

Any objections or comments?

Note that the documents have some open issues, some of them being 
discussed on the mailing list already, which will continue until the WG 
considers the documents finish. Thus this was NOT a WG last call; just a 
check whether the WG wants to consider the documents for its starting point.

     Erik and Donald