Subject: [rbridge] separating out the header spec

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:31:43 -0700

Hi, all,

I spoke with Eric today, and came to an observation that might be useful
to make explicit in the separation of the header spec from other parts
of our protocols.

In a sense, this ought to be a split that reflects the functional
separation of the data plane from the control plane.

Data plane - encapsulation headers, semantics of the fields, and
forwarding operations based on the encapsulation headers

Control plane - protocols used to setup state used by the data plane

If that's the split, then I understand the utility and agree this is a
useful way to get the data plane spec out more quickly. Can anyone who
was strongly in favor of the split let me know if this makes sense, or
if they're thinking of something else?

PS - there are other planes, as well, e.g., the management plane (MIBs),
and the one I hope we can avoid in these discussions (the customer plane ;-)

Joe

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch                Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
               Postel Center Director & Research Assoc. Prof., USC/ISI

-------------- 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/20070727/a787cef2/signature.bin