Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Phil,


> Something else.  The BOF is taking a different track.

You mean "defining an internal interface between IP and link-layers?".
This is clearly different than what I had in my mind when proposing
this bof. I see benefits of defining such an interface, but I think more
immediate problem that needs to be tackled in IETF is a transport
protocol for carrying L2 triggers. This is essential in bridged networks.
A simple client-server protocol to convey L2 events from bridges
to hosts is needed. I'm currently working on a draft defining such a
protocol. I should be able to publish it in a week. And I think that
would be a candidate for standards-track.

> Please read the archives on pilc regarding BOF.

alper



> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
> To: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement
>
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > *What*, precisely, do you propose be standards track? The current draft
> > defining abstract L2 triggers or something else?
> >
> > I do think Vern and James have a point about the necessity of standards
> > specifying something on the wire that can be verified for conformance.
> >
> >             jak
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>
> > To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver"
> > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement
> >
> >
> > > I absolutely disagree.  IP will have to change for modern wireless
> > devices.  Those who say
> > > it won't have their head in the sand.  James we are not taking the
> > PILC approach of creating
> > > a recommendation for L2 providers.  We are a bunch of L2 providers
> > telling IP what it
> > > needs to do!!! Absolutely has to be standards track.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
> > > To: "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:47 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement
> > >
> > >
> > > > Vern
> > > >
> > > > > Again, the reasons I trust there is no hope of a standards track
> > L2
> > > > > Triggers RFC do not apply to an Information RFC.  As has been said
> > > > > repeatedly, an Informational RFC on L2 triggers could be valuable.
> > > > > Why are you so set the standards track?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anybody is set on standards track at this point. The
> > > > reason for doing this as a WG rather than an individual effort is to
> > get
> > > > IETF concensus on it, so that it would represent the best thinking
> > of
> > > > the IETF to other standardization groups, like IEEE, on what's
> > needed
> > > > for a high performance wireless Layer 2 for IP.
> > > >
> > > >             jak
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pilc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
> http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/
>


_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/