Subject: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again

From: sgai at nuovasystems.com (Silvano Gai)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:22:38 -0700

Joe,

Let's get this straight so we don't waste any more time: "are you saying
that the WG charter is written, the A&P statement is drafted" and
therefore the WG is no longer interested in listening to other
requirements?

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]
On
> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:36 AM
> To: Dinesh G Dutt
> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh G Dutt wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Gray, Eric wrote:
> >> The argument that "You're changing things, and while you're at it,
> >> why not change these other things" is a particularly obnoxious old
> >> Dinosaur.
> >>
> > I have shown the reasons and with the exception of you and Joe, I
> > haven't heard any objection to including the ingress Rbridge (at
least)
> > or the FTAG. So, from a democratic spirit, it is upto you two to
give us
> > technical reasons for objecting instead of saying "its not in the
> > charter" or "you can't change that". The charter doesn't explicitly
> > forbid doing traceroute, for example.
> 
> Charters define what is permitted; that which is not permitted is
> prohibited, unless it is needed to support what is permitted.
> 
> Otherwise, charters would be wide-open to anything not prohibited; we
> don't have time to enumerate that list.
> 
> Joe

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:28:09 -0700

> therefore the WG is no longer interested in listening to other

Anything not stated explicitly in the charter is out-of-scope, UNLESS it
is needed to support something in the charter indirectly.  This isn't a
matter of "permitted unless prohibited" - the point of the charter is to
constrain the scope. It's also not a matter of "once you open the spec,
anything is on the table"; that's not how charters work.

I - and Eric - are saying that if you want to add requirements, FIRST
you need to get the WG consensus on changing the charter. THEN we need
to get the AD's on board. THEN we do the work to address the requirements.

Joe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20061023/7afbd8aa/signature.bin

---

From: ddutt at cisco.com (Dinesh G Dutt)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:54:34 -0700

Good Morning Joe,

> anything is on the table"; that's not how charters work.
I read the latest version of the P&AS at 
http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/draft-ietf-trill-prob-01.txt. I fail to 
see anything that precludes adding a source RBridge in the packet frame.

I also do not see anything that prevents using multiple shared trees to 
address the case of maximal link utilization for multicast. Since 
maximal link utilization is a part of the P&AS and the current solution 
of using source-Rbridge-based trees is not as efficient as multiple 
shared trees, FTAG addresses this requirement directly. Sure, you can 
attempt to alleviate the current situation by trying to build multple 
source-Rbridge-based trees, but FTAG provides a mechanism to do it 
better and also enables a host of other functionalities, that do not 
have to be called out in the charter.

In short, I'm unable to see how the addition of the two fields that 
Silvano & I are proposing requires a revisit or update of the charter. 
Since we're trying to address real-life problems (which includes 
troubleshooting), I continue to perceive a lack of technical merit in 
the arguments against addition of the two fields. I also continue to 
want to hear other voices in favor of or against the proposal and the 
reasons for their positions.

Dinesh

-- 
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by 
the depth of our answers.                               - Carl Sagan

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:00:44 -0700

Dinesh G Dutt wrote:
> address the case of maximal link utilization for multicast.
...

> Silvano & I are proposing requires a revisit or update of the charter.

IMO, you need to make the case that these are REQUIRED by the charter,
not "not PREVENTED" by the charter.

> troubleshooting),

Which is NOT in the charter, i.e., not functions beyond that supported
by 802.

> I continue to perceive a lack of technical merit in
> the arguments against addition of the two fields.

The issue is the lack of their necessity to support the current charter.
 You need to make the case that they are _required_ to support the
current charter, or make the case to change the charter.

JOe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20061023/5080dd2f/signature.bin