Subject: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:38:00 -0700

The document is at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-trill-over-ip/

We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.

Please send comments to the list.

    Erik

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 05:34:52 -0700

I do not think we should rush this document to WG status. We should look
in a bigger picture i.e. what sorts of TRILL interconnects are needed
and then proceed accordingly.

We do not want too many solutions that implement subsets. It is a pain
for vendors and confusion for customers. What we need is a single
comprehensive solution that covers the problem spaces.

My vote is "NO" to move this document to WG status.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG
document?

The document is at

We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the
past.

    Erik
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:12 -0400

> My vote is "NO" to move this document to WG status.

That sounds a bit backwards to me.

The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe the
only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants (and the
authors want) to steer the document by the working group consensus process.

Determining whether it's needed or the right technical solution is
further down the road.  If the wg determines that it's not right and
can't fix it, then it can terminate the work that it steers.  Adoption
doesn't mean "we're committed to publishing this."

I think leaving work that is in the scope of the working group outside
the wg merely because some higher-level planning is contemplated is not
a good idea, and not keeping with IETF tradition.  It invites exactly
the sort of "too many solutions" problems that the poster refers to, as
the rejected authors seek out other venues -- including individual
submission -- to pursue the work.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 06:15:37 -0700

Hi James 

I am not clear with your point though, you indicated lead to "too many
solutions", which is exactly the issue. 

please see my comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:56 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG
document?

Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:
> I do not think we should rush this document to WG status. We should 
> look in a bigger picture i.e. what sorts of TRILL interconnects are 
> needed and then proceed accordingly.
> 

[Answer] Doing small piecemeal work, is not the right approach. 
 
The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe the
only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants (and the
authors want) to steer the document by the working group consensus
process.

[Answer] Good point, I re-read the charter one more time and there is no
where it says TRILL over IP or other encapsulation, so it seems the
document is not in charter. Please could you point to the WG, which line
item in charter that qualifies this work to be in scope ?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/trill/charter/

[Answer] IETF tradition has been to start with a problem space and
create a common solution not making every draft that is in scope of
charter a WG document. Your point on "too many solutions" exactly that
is my point having subset of solutions finally leads to too many small
pieces.
-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:29:40 -0400

> [Answer] Doing small piecemeal work, is not the right approach. 

We might agree on that point, but it's not the question at hand.  The
question at hand is whether to adopt a draft.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/trill/charter/

Sure:

	"This includes a MIB module and
other pieces needed for operations, but also additional ways to
extend and optimize TRILL for the properties of the networks on
which it is deployed."

This seems to me to be an additional way to extend TRILL for the
property of a network -- specifically, an IP network.

Granted, I'm not thrilled about the idea of adding a new means to reach
mutual encapsulation.  I assume the authors have a good reason to do
this, and have interesting ideas on how and why it should be done.  The
important point is that I think this working group is the best possible
forum to air those ideas.

> is my point having subset of solutions finally leads to too many small

Some efforts do indeed follow that simple linear path -- idea, BOF,
charter, WG, publication.  But that's certainly not the only path, nor
perhaps even the most common.  Adoption by an existing WG of new
in-scope documents is something that I view as crucially important to
continued WG viability.  Without it, protocols just grow like weeds as
new extensions are otherwise developed, deployed, and documented without
the help of WG consensus using the individual-submission RFC publication
track.

Failing to adopt does not foreclose publication of an RFC describing
this extension, nor any other work by the authors.  It simply
disconnects the WG from the process.

Sending TRILL over IP off to the individual-submission world without WG
input would, I think, be a poor result of this exercise.  I've been
through that problem as PPPEXT chair, and it's no fun.

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:04:31 -0700

Hi James

I think we are agreeing on lots points except one important point i.e.
SHOULD or SHOULD NOT make individual submissions WG docs without a
strategy.

My main objection of making individual submissions WG docs without well
thought through strategy is it takes away the focus and confuse WG,
customers and burden vendors. Additionally, TRILL WG should focus on the
priority items that was agreed in Taipei. Adding additional WG docs is
not helping anyways. I am in the opinion that WG should identify
priority Work areas, then form strategy around it, bring together
different ideas to form well thought through solutions. 

Secondly, it seems you are in the opinion that to get WG input the draft
need to be WG document. I disagree with that. A draft does not need to
be in WG status to get WG feedback. Authors should solicit feedback
through the mailing list. Making a WG status is not going to change
that. 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:30 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG
document?

> The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe 
> the only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants 
> (and the authors want) to steer the document by the working group 
> consensus process.
> 
> [Answer] Good point, I re-read the charter one more time and there is 
> no where it says TRILL over IP or other encapsulation, so it seems the

> document is not in charter. Please could you point to the WG, which 
> line item in charter that qualifies this work to be in scope ?
> 

Sure:

	"This includes a MIB module and
other pieces needed for operations, but also additional ways to extend
and optimize TRILL for the properties of the networks on which it is
deployed."

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:11:07 -0700

Regarding this approach, I'm also wondering why TRILL-over-IP?

Since TRILL is over ethernet, and ethernet is over IP, why is a specific 
solution for TRILL over IP even needed? Seems like a lot of potential 
complexity to save 18 bytes.

Joe

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:17:44 -0400

> SHOULD or SHOULD NOT make individual submissions WG docs without a

I understand what you're saying, but I think that steering work that's
directly related to the WG's future success sounds to me like part of a
good strategy.

> different ideas to form well thought through solutions. 

I don't quite follow.  Publishing an RFC as an independent submission to
the IESG has exactly those effects.  That's the bad outcome that occurs
when a WG doesn't steer work that's intimately related to its charter.

I don't understand how a "burden" develops on vendors or customers as a
result of the discussion of ideas in the WG -- that's all that drafts
represent; ideas.  A burden certainly can develop as a result of
_decisions_ that are made by a WG, but mere discussion shouldn't have
that effect.  If it does, then those vendors and customers have just way
too much time on their collective hands, or perhaps they're confused
about the process.

> through the mailing list. Making a WG status is not going to change

Oh, well.  I tried.

Much luck.

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:51:02 -0700

Please comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG
document?

> My main objection of making individual submissions WG docs without 
> well thought through strategy is it takes away the focus and confuse 
> WG, customers and burden vendors. Additionally, TRILL WG should focus 
> on the priority items that was agreed in Taipei. Adding additional WG 
> docs is not helping anyways. I am in the opinion that WG should 
> identify priority Work areas, then form strategy around it, bring 
> together different ideas to form well thought through solutions.

[Answer] Each WG status document is intended to be considered to be a
future RFC. They are not mere numbers or academic papers. That is the
reason why WG, Vendors and customers read them. Yes having too many of
them and some with duplication or implementing part solution takes away
the time available in hand. Again, my point is we do not need to make a
document a WG status document for simple discussion purpose (which seems
the point you are arguing)

> Secondly, it seems you are in the opinion that to get WG input the 
> draft need to be WG document. I disagree with that. A draft does not 
> need to be in WG status to get WG feedback. Authors should solicit 
> feedback through the mailing list. Making a WG status is not going to 
> change that.

Oh, well.  I tried.

Much luck.

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:03:45 -0400

> the point you are arguing)

We clearly disagree in fundamental ways on how the process works.  I had
thought that BCP 25 made it clear that I-Ds have no standards status
whatsoever, and that advancement of wg documents (if it happens, not
when) requires both group consensus and IESG review.  WG adoption does
not in any way confer RFC status upon a draft.

And, yes, I do think the bar for entry into discussion should be quite
low.  A draft discussing a new HTML status code probably doesn't belong
here.  But something discussing TRILL extensions clearly does, even if
it's something that the group hadn't collectively "planned" on discussing.

Given the nature of the disagreement, and the fact that I'm repeating
myself, I don't think extended discussion will be fruitful.  Perhaps
it'd be good to hear other viewpoints.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:11:25 -0700

On 5/14/2012 10:03 AM, James Carlson wrote:
>> future RFC. They are not mere numbers or academic papers.
...
> not in any way confer RFC status upon a draft.

This is discussed in Sec 5.3 of the Tao of the IETF.

> it's something that the group hadn't collectively "planned" on discussing.

WG status does not have any impact on whether the draft is discussed.

I agree with Tissa - IMO, the WG should adopt drafts it reasonably 
agrees it wants to issue as WG RFCs. WG adoption doesn't confer 
particular status, but it is a suggestion to the WG as to where critical 
resources should be spent (e.g., resolving WG docs before considering 
independent ones, when resources are critical).

Joe

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:36:46 -0700

I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in
several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.

So, I think it should be a WG document.

Radia

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:06:09 -0700

Hi Radia

If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then this draft is not generic. 

If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header. 

If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.

Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Erik Nordmark
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.

Radia

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:26:30 -0400

None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need
to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will
respond a bit below:

> If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

You can but the result is inferior, adding more layers of fuzz between
TRILL and actual transport protocol.

> If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header.

Maybe on a point-to-point link the main advantage is the savings you
mention. But on a multi-point technology like IP there are lots of
other factors in addition to saving a non-trivial number of bytes,
factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.

The current L2VPN WG draft, to the extent it talks about
interconnecting TRILL islands, isn't TRILL over anything but, although
it connects the TRILL data planes, runs some new different more
loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.

> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft
that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised
objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your
hands is not a way to get standards done.

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

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:28 -0700

Hi Donald,

Few questions inline.

Sam

Sent from my iPad

> to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will
%sam- does this mean, the poll being undertaken is a moot point? If so, why to ask the WG for adoption?
> TRILL and actual transport protocol.
%sam - are you saying, because it uses ip, it is superior technology than L2 technologies like PW? Ip has to use L2 anyway, so, the logic you are using doesn't make sense to me.
> factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.
That is not true. Vpls is a multi point technology and is widely used in many network types. Which aspects of the technology makes ip better here?
> loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.
It is not entirely correct. The existing draft does encap trill frames with labels to be transferred over pw's. Whether it connects islands or something else is a matter of how you deploy the technology.

Sam

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:18:48 -0400

Hi Sam,

> %sam- does this mean, the poll being undertaken is a moot point? If so, why to ask the WG for adoption?

Yes, it is moot. When the question was asked, this was not realized.

> %sam - are you saying, because it uses ip, it is superior technology than L2 technologies like PW? Ip has to use L2 anyway, so, the logic you are using doesn't make sense to me.

Not at all. I'm saying that when you design a native way of doing X
over Y, you typically get a better result that when you say "we will
do X over Y by just using the Generic over Y existing protocol and
doing X over Generic over Y". Let me give a specific example: GRE.
Lots of things use GRE but if you look at the GRE RFC 2784, it says:
   "In attempting to be more general, many protocol specific
   nuances have been ignored [in GRE]. The result is that this proposal
   may be less suitable for a situation where a specific "X over Y"
   encapsulation has been described."

Another specific example of something that can get fuzzed and produce
inferior results due to generic middle levels of protocol is MTU
handling.

On the other hand, it takes more work to to specify specific native
ways to do X over Y for lots of Ys. You don't always end up with the
same answer. TRILL over PPP (RFC6361) uses a native format designed
for TRILL. On the other hand, draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls for full
point to point connection of RBridges specifies using already
specified Ethernet or PPP MPLS pseudo-wires and recommends using the
PPP types because it saves bytes and is already specified.

> That is not true.

All I was trying to say was that multi-point (multi-access) link
technologies are more complicated than point-to-point so there are
more different factors in their performance. I continue to believe
that.

>Vpls is a multi point technology and is widely used in many network types. Which aspects of the technology makes ip better here?

Ubiquity? I'm really not interested in continuing to argue about
technology t1 versus technology t2 since I'm pretty certain that you
would eventually find out that t1 was better under some circumstances
and t2 was better under other circumstances. This does not mean that
you should standardize both t1 and t2 but if you believe the
circumstances where tx was best were common enough, you would want to
standardize tx.

> It is not entirely correct. The existing draft does encap trill frames with labels to be transferred over pw's. Whether it connects islands or something else is a matter of how you deploy the techn…

Last time I looked, I believe it only did that for TRILL Data frames,
not TRILL IS-IS frames.

Donald

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:47:16 -0400

Donald,

	Possibly I am missing something here, but it looks like 
you are not being terribly clear.  Either that, or you it may
be that you are being clear terribly.

	:-)

	In saying that the AD has said that the WG needs "to 
re-charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft [SIC]" it is not
clear exactly what this means.  Moreover, in responding to
Sam's request for clarification, you have not made this any 
clearer.

	Are you saying:

1) The AD says that this cannot be a WG draft unless the WG
   adds it to the Charter.

	... Or ...

2) The AD has instructed us to add this work item to the WG
   Charter, so that work can progress on this draft.

I suspect that what you mean is the former, but what you said
can be interpretted either way, and either way would mean the
question of adopting the draft as a WG draft is moot...

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

Hi Sam,

Donald

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:36:56 -0700

[Removed content which is not relavent]

> Yes, it is moot. When the question was asked, this was not realized.
There are multiple drafts addressing TRILL interconnect, which means TRILL over something. These drafts include TRILL over IP as well.
What does this decision mean for those drafts, which includes TRILL over IP as well?
>   encapsulation has been described."
If layering is the problem, then we would not be talking about NVGRE etc technologies, which are built over it. My point is, just because there is generic layer, does not discount X over generic over Y, because there are other advantages which comes along with that.
> inferior results due to generic middle levels of protocol is MTU
%SAM - It goes both ways. MTU issue and defragmentation, packet re-order are some other issues which comes along with IP.
> Last time I looked, I believe it only did that for TRILL Data frames,
Correct. The current PBB-EVPN do not process IS-IS control frames.

-sam

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:43:43 -0700

I do not support making this WG document as of now.

Reasons are as follows
 - There is still lots to be done in the interconnect area before picking individual solutions like TRILL over IP, TRILL over GRE, TRILL over MPLS etc
- There are other drafts which are also addressing interconnect and TRILL over various WAN technologies and cover much broader scope and not just IP.
- We really haven't discussed much in the area of interconnect. Once that discussion happens, WG could take the right course on how to move forward.

-sam

---

From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:31:49 -0700

Hi Donald

Please see some comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. 

[Answer] That is very prudent and thanks.

However, I will respond a bit below:

> If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

You can but the result is inferior, adding more layers of fuzz between TRILL and actual transport protocol.

[Answer] Which sense would the result be inferior ? Native form of TRILL as defined in RFC 6325 is with a link-level header and removing that and remapping to IP in my opinion is more fuzz than using native form over L2VPN.

> If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header.

Maybe on a point-to-point link the main advantage is the savings you mention. But on a multi-point technology like IP there are lots of other factors in addition to saving a non-trivial number of bytes, factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.

The current L2VPN WG draft, to the extent it talks about interconnecting TRILL islands, isn't TRILL over anything but, although it connects the TRILL data planes, runs some new different more loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.

[Answer] Sam has already answered this.

> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your hands is not a way to get standards done.

[Answer] Few fronts here: 1. I Have raised the same objection in Taipei and over the mailing list, i.e. why yet another solution, as far as I can tell that has not been resolved.
2. We can fundamentally disagree, but my opinion on right way to get standards done is to have a well thought through strategy rather than advancing individual solutions.
3. On a different note, our WG should spent sometime deciding on what work items to be done and strategy around them. According to published goals, TRILL is up for re-charter or shutdown in July 2012. Having clear strategy around work items to be done will help. (My two bits of thoughts here) 

Thanks,
Donald

> Of Radia Perlman

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:27:54 -0400

> authors want) to steer the document by the working group consensus

IMO, this document is a straightforward TRILL encapsulation over Foo
document. I would expect TRILL to produce a number of these, one per
link technology. 

As long as such documents are scoped as how to run TRILL over a
specific technology, IMO, such documents should be taken on by this
WG. If we don't do it, who will? And we certainly want exactly one
document per foo technology...

> doesn't mean "we're committed to publishing this."

That is the theory. Sadly, in practice, taking on a document as a WG
item often does imply a committment to publish. I've seen plenty of
WGs make the argument that taking a document on is not a committment
to publish, and then later see a real reluctance to abandon a document
that has limited if any real support.

To be clear, I support taking on this particular document because I
believe this is a good example of the kind of document that should be
squarely within scope. However, I also agree with Tissa's general
concern:

> different ideas to form well thought through solutions.

This WG has too many documents to deal with and we are to some extent
thrashing. Any WG has a finite amount of WG cycles. I continue to
worry generally that our cycles are spread too thinly across too many
documents. While I support taking on draft-mrw-trill-over-ip, it is
far from clear to me that it needs to be a priority item for the WG.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:30:56 -0400

> to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will

Then let us please have that discussion and recharter. IMO, it is
close to ludicrous for "TRILL over Foo" documents to be out-of-scope
for this WG, if that is indeed what you are saying.

One could argue that the WG needs to finish its core documents
first. Or that it needs to get deploy experience first, etc., etc. Or
that specific FOO is not needed. But having work on
draft-mrw-trill-over-ip being done outside of the WG because its
generally out-of-scope for TRILL would be broken, IMO.

Thomas

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:35:46 -0400

> generally out-of-scope for TRILL would be broken, IMO.

draft-mrw-trill-over-ip is not out of scope, it's just not on the current list of deliverables for the working group.  The core charter of the working group is still OK but the list of deliverables is more than a year old.  Some have been completed, some have seen some progress but are late, some have not been addressed at all.  It's appropriate for the WG to revisit the list of deliverables, decide what documents are core and revise the charter appropriately.

- Ralph

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 06:54:23 -0400

Hi Ralph,

Just FYI -- I am one of the authors of draft-mrw-trill-over-ip, so obviously I have an interest in the outcome here.

> to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will

Could you clarify what you mean by "we need to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft"?  I can think of two things you might mean.

(1) TRILL over Foo documents would fall into this part of the charter,

"...but also additional ways to
extend and optimize TRILL for the properties of the networks on
which it is deployed."

but we need to add a milestone for TRILL over IP which you and the chairs can easily do if the WG agrees it wants to do this work.  This makes sense to me.

OR

(2) The above sentence would not cover TRILL over Foo documents, and we would need to do a completely new charter to cover them.  This doesn't make sense to me for two reasons:  (a) TRILL over Foo documents are pretty clearly going to be needed, and need to be done in the TRILL WG, and (b) I'm not sure what else would fall more firmly under the notion of "extend ... TRILL for the properties ... of the networks on which will be deployed".

Whatever your intent, if we _did_ somehow manage to charter a WG where the work needed to encapsulate the core protocol in IP _doesn't_ fall in the WG charter, could we please fix that?

I understand that we aren't done with the discussion of whether or not the WG wants to adopt this particular draft for that purpose, but the decisions about whether to encapsulate TRILL in IP, and if so, how do it, clearly need to be made in the TRILL WG, not through the individual or independent submission paths (which is what tends to happen when existing, nearly complete documents are declared out-of-scope for any IETF WG).

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:33:53 -0400

> Could you clarify what you mean by "we need to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft"?  I can think of two things you might mean.

I meant a third thing (quoting from previous e-mail):

- Ralph

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:00:43 -0400

> draft-mrw-trill-over-ip is not out of scope, it's just not on the current list of deliverables for the working group.  The core charter of the working group is still OK but the list of deliverables…

I agree that the charter could use an update, and I support updating it!  :-)

Personally, I would like to see the concept of a "TRILL over IP" encapsulation added to the new charter, whether that eventually leads to adopting my current draft, or deciding to go with another approach (like TRILL over Ethernet over IP), as I think this is something that is clearly needed for the deployment of TRILL in large campuses.

I don't think we should allow ourselves to get stuck in situation where we all agree that a problem is in-scope for the WG, but we can't adopt or advance any drafts to address that problem, because we haven't handled the bureaucratic end of things yet.  So, let's get the charter update done quickly.  Is there anything I can do to help?

Thanks!
Margaret

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:48:47 -0400

> So, I think it should be a WG document.

Agreed --I support making this a working group doc.

:-)

Russ