Subject: Re: [Pppext] [rbridge] proposed TRILL IS-IS System ID text

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:31:08 -0400

On 2/4/11 8:01 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:34 PM, James Carlson
> <[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
>> At a minimum, I want to hear from IS-IS and TRILL experts before I go
>> ahead with proposing any new random-number-based System ID mechanism.
>> If they sign on, then I'll go ahead with it.
>>
>> But my off-the-cuff guess is that they'll have objections, and more
>> objections probably aren't helpful in getting to consensus.
>
> Coming from the TRILL part of the world, I don't think this is a problem
> that needs to be addressed in this draft.  Generating a unique System ID
> for IS-IS is an IS-IS problem, and as such should be addressed in the IS-IS
> working group.
>
> Anoop
>
After some local difficulty, I've posted to the pppext list a separate
draft.  If somebody points me at another WG list, I'll post it there too.

I'd be reasonably content to have the TRILL PPP draft reference my draft
for resolution of the issue.  Then, it can be discussed as many places
as needed.  As it is very simple and builds on existing standard's track
protocols, I doubt that it's contentious.

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:17:03 -0400

> protocols, I doubt that it's contentious.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext/current/msg00516.html

Since the IETF meeting starts tomorrow in Prague, and both TRILL and ISIS
meet on Monday, is anybody likely to be there and ask somebody over in the
ISIS WG whether they have any interest?  I'm planning on taking this
directly to RFC via Independent Submission.

So far, I've only received 2 private comments.

  1) about one reference in the PPP section.  I've checked, and that was
deprecated in [RFC1990].  So, I'll re-write to reference the earlier
decisions and language on the PPP list.  Nearly identical language
remains in [RFC1663].

  2) the 30 second timeout is too long.  That's easy to shorten, and
should probably have a random dither to avoid simultaneous changes.
How about 9-12 seconds inclusive?

It's pretty simple and uncontroversial.  But I'd still welcome any
word-smithing review!

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:47:05 -0400

Hi Bill,

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext/current/msg00516.html

Well, the ISIS WG mailing list is [email-masked]. I suppose, if you
want, I could post it there. I am also planning to attend and could
probably say something about it.

> directly to RFC via Independent Submission.

There will be a brief mention of the
draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-02.txt draft, along with other TRILL
relevant drafts, during the initial presentation by the chairs.

> It's pretty simple and uncontroversial.  But I'd still welcome any

Thanks,
Donald