Subject: Re: [trill] draft-mme-trill-fcoe as an independent submission

From: Liyizhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:14:54 +0000

I did not see any new thing to be standardized by this draft for TRILL WG. 
I agree with some previous responses. Individual submission is more reasonable than WG adoption for this draft.

Yizhou
________________________________________
发件人: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] 代表 Donald Eastlake [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年10月18日 11:23
到: [email-masked]
主题: [trill] draft-mme-trill-fcoe as an independent submission

Hi,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mme-trill-fcoe/ was briefly
presented to the TRILL WG at the Quebec City IETF-81 meeting. I'll
paste an extract from the minutes at the end of this email.

There have been three references to this draft on the TRILL WG mailing
list (before this message), none of which produced any response:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01473.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01489.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg01643.html

The draft is being processed by the RFC Independent Submissions Editor
and is awaiting a determination by the IESG as to whether the draft
does or does not conflict with ongoing work in the IETF such as that
of the TRILL WG. Based on the current state of the IESG ballt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-mme-trill-fcoe/ballot/),
I request further WG discussion of whether or not this draft should be
a TRILL WG draft and whether or not it conflicts with work in the
TRILL WG.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

Extract from Minutes of TRILL WG at IETF-81:

FCoE over TRILL, David Melman (Marvell), Tal Mizrahi (Marvell)
draft-mme-trill-fcoe-00.txt

(very limited time because earlier presentations and discussion ran
over)

Tal Mizrahi (Marvell): This draft is intended for
informational. ... selected slides ...

Anoop Ghanwani: Are you changing the TRILL header hop-by-hop.

Donald: The frame is being TRILL encapsulated and decapsulated at each
hop.

Anoop: So the TRILL Header isn't doing anything. The whole path is
computed by FCSP. If you are running both control planes, why have the
TRILL Header at all.

Tal: There is a slide on that: not all RBridges are FCRBs. In that
case, you still want the TRILL clouds to do optimal routing.

Puneet Agarwal (Broadcom): I don't see what this does other than state
the obvious. FCoE is running over TRILL. Why do you need a draft for
that?

Tal: We are just showing how they work together.

Puneet: So, should I do a draft on IP routing over TRILL?

Donald: It is a little different because you would normally have the
routers at the edge but here you have the Fiber Channel devices
distributed throughout the TRILL cloud with a savings in cabling and
cabinetry. If the FC is external to the TRILL cloud, then typically
you have to transit the TRILL cloud twice. So, it is a way of doing
it. If you think this draft has no value, so be it. If the WG thinks
that way, then it shouldn't be a working group draft.

Puneet: OK. I don't think it should be a working group draft.

Donald: Well, we are out of time. Thanks everyone and see you in
Taiwan.
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill