Subject: [Gen-art] genart review: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:57:57 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 30 Mar 2007
IETF LC End Date: 30 Mar 2007
IESG Telechat date: 5 Apr 2007

Summary: This draft is essentially ready to publish as an  
Informational RFC

Comments:

The contents of this draft lie well outside my area of expertise.  I  
cannot
comment on its use of terms or statements of history, There have been
other IETF LC comments made on ietf-general that may point out minor
appropriate adjustments in these areas.

The document is intended to guide future working group discussion and
the level of detail seems appropriate for that target audience.

The non-requirements comments (around the appropriateness of IS-IS)
feel out of place and may be leakage from an ongoing debate this  
document
is intended to help guide?

I was reasonably able to follow the requirements the document states.

I've sent typo-level nits directly to Eric.,

RjS

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Eric Gray \(LO/EUS\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:20:45 -0500

Robert,

	Thanks for your comments, both these and the editorial
comments sent to me privately.

	The references to IS-IS are, indeed, leakage as you have
suggested.  The working group chairs had specifically wanted 
the draft to at least hint that IS-IS is the working group's
current consensus choice.

	Unfortunately, the evolution of this work is - as it has
been with many IETF efforts in the past - a progression from a
proposed solution (presented years ago at an InfoCom meeting)
toward a set of documents intended to justify use of that 
solution in one or more specific problem spaces.

	In writing the document, I initially tried diligently to
keep from pre-choosing among alternatives - even though the
choice has been clear from very early on.  While it does seem
possible to work with either IS-IS, or OSPF, to address basic
determination of shortest bridging paths, the working group is
not actually interested in using OSPF.  This was - in large part 
- because routing protocol exchanges necessarily take place over 
IP using OSPF, unless we want to consider modification of OSPF
at that level.

	Using IP for fundamental protocol exchanges, means having
IP addresses and - while this can (in theory) be done without
pre-congfiguring IP addresses - it has been the working group
consensus that this is trivially avoidable by using system IDs
in IS-IS.  This was true since before the working group was a 
working group.

	Also, as a factor influencing the writing of this draft,
there was the fact that the IS-IS working group specifically
needed to justify adding the work required to their charter, and
they had been in the process of re-chartering for a few meeting
cycles now...

Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); [email-masked]
> Subject: genart review: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt
>