Subject: [rbridge] Proposed agenda

From: erik.nordmark at sun.com (Erik Nordmark)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:32:19 -0800

Transparent interconnection of Lots of Links WG

WEDNESDAY, November 9, 2005
1300-1500 Afternoon Session I

Administrativia (scribe etc)		Chair		5 minutes

Agenda bashing				Chair		5 minutes

Base specifications			Joe Touch	40 minutes

Routing Requirements in Support of R-Bridges
draft-gray-rbridge-routing-reqs-00.txt	Eric Gray	20 minutes

Multicast Link State For Rbidges
draft-hares-trill-multicast-00.txt	Sue Hares	20 minutes

---

From: harald at alvestrand.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:04:32 +0100

.... what are the base specifications ....?

draft-bryant-perlman-trill-pwe-encap-00 doesn't seem complete.... do you 
count it as part of the base, or not?

--On torsdag, november 03, 2005 07:32:19 -0800 Erik Nordmark 
<erik.nordmark at sun.com> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>

---

From: erik.nordmark at sun.com (Erik Nordmark)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:11:43 -0800

> .... what are the base specifications ....?

It refers to Joe Touch'es work to split draft-perlman-rbridge into 3 
separate documents, which the WG can then work on in parallel.
The split drafts do not exist in the I-D directory. I've asked Joe to 
make them available in their current form on some other web server, so 
that folks can see how the work is progressing, even though the 
documents are not finished.

At a minimum we'll get a status update from Joe (I assume), but there 
might be issues worth discussing.

> count it as part of the base, or not?

I've never heard of that document before. It is not part of the base.

    Erik

---

From: Radia.Perlman at sun.com (Radia Perlman)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:36:43 -0800

That document is a new idea to shrink the shim header into 4 bytes. I 
think it would be
good to have that on the agenda. I didn't volunteer because I won't be 
at this IETF, but it
would be great if one of the other coauthors would volunteer to present it.

Radia

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:35:36 -0800

> might be issues worth discussing.

There should be three docs:

	Problem and Applicability Statement
		just focus on defining the problem, making as few
		assumptions about architecture and protocol as
		possible; the goal is to allow alternate solutions,
		so long as the problem is satisfied. we don't want
		a 'hammer looking for a nail' -- this is just the nail.

	Architecture
		this describes the architecture of the proposed solution
		while making as few assumptions about particulars of
		the protocol as possible

	Protocol
		this focuses on the particulars of the solution's
		protocols based on the architecture

I had offered to work on the drafts of the first two, based on the
existing ID. The first one doesn't actually borrow that much text; the
second is more direct, though.

A draft of the first document is now available on the website:
	http://www.postel.org/rbridge

I've submitted it as an ID just to provide a basic draft-touch-*-00 to
have diffs off of later; any feedback from the meeting or list will end
up in the draft-touch-*-01, or if it is OK to become a WG doc, the
draft-ietf-trill-*-00.

The second document will be available shortly (hopefully Sun PM at the
absolute latest).

Joe

---

From: akatlas at gmail.com (Alia Atlas)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:26:25 -0800

> would be great if one of the other coauthors would volunteer to present

I could present it, if there is time and interest.

Alia

Radia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20051107/6ca00d89/attachment.html

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:34:40 -0800

Joe Touch wrote:
...
> 	http://www.postel.org/rbridge

The second is now available as well; it's a bit draftier. I have text
for other sections, just haven't entered it yet. As a result, it's
labelled 00a (and will be completed by the time the ID queue reopens and
it is submitted).

The key issue on both drafts:

	- are these the right structure and general tone?

	- are these the kind of docs to become WG docs?

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://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20051107/a35341db/signature.bin