Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-02.txt

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:14:22 -0700

On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:10 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> I believe that we are ready for a working group last call on 
> draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-02.txt. The proposed status is 
> Informational. This call will end on May 6. Please finalize your 
> comments on this draft or declare it ready for submission as-is.

I have seen no comments on the draft, positive or negative. I guess I 
assume it passed last call...

However, it also expired a couple of days ago.

Tim, could I prevail on you to repost it?

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:49:36 +0100

> Tim, could I prevail on you to repost it?

Oops.  I'l do so as draft-ietf.   The only comment I have outstanding
is regarding the example in the Appendix.  Some people found it useful,
though Pekka suggested an IOS example.  I think if we keep it, it should
probably stay 'vendor neutral'.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 04:15:55 -0700

On May 10, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Tim Chown wrote:

> Oops.  I'l do so as draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage-02.txt.   The only 
> comment I have outstanding is regarding the example in the Appendix.  
> Some people found it useful, though Pekka suggested an IOS example.  I 
> think if we keep it, it should probably stay 'vendor neutral'.

yes, most likely.

OK, thanks.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:28:48 +0300 (EEST)

> probably stay 'vendor neutral'.

Vendor neutral could be a problem.  That is, the goal of the draft is 
to describe something that's rather obvious (to some people).  If we 
don't have concrete examples that the readers can correspond to their 
existing configurations, I fear the example isn't going to be of much 
use.

So my gut feeling is that (without knowing what kind of 'vendor 
neutral' text could be cooked up),
  - the current example is not good, because it's too verbose and based 
on BSD which isn't sufficiently commonplace so that the readers would 
gain additional understanding.
  - A Cisco example (one page would be enough) would be sufficient and 
widely understood (even by those who don't use Cisco)
  - A generic example, using pseudocode or whatever, would likely be 
counter-productive, so if we can't use a specific example, we'd be 
probably better off without the example at all.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:04:51 +0100

I don't have strong feelings.  We can leave as is, remove the example
altogether, or use an IOS one (if someone wants to write that).

Tim

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: "Michael H. Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:06:05 -0400

I think a JUNOS example would also be worthy of consideration (probably 
readable by Cisco users; also somewhat resembling pseudocode).

Michael

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:33:49 -0700

On May 10, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> If we don't have concrete examples that the readers can correspond to 
> their existing configurations, I fear the example isn't going to be of 
> much use.

My question relates to what people will understand reading the document 
a decade from now. RFCs, unlike I-Ds, are forever, but the example is 
pretty specific not only to a vendor but to a specific equipment 
running a specific software release. If you want a vendor-specific 
example, I think it's only fair to say that and give the vendor the 
option of fixing it without having to explain to every customer for the 
next decade that the issue has been resolved.