Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Charter Statement

The more drafts the better.  I had not gotten the notion that "my" idea was
"unique".  From personal mails I have received and discussions that are logged
there is at least some support.  Perhaps this is a different BOF though?   The
L2 triggers BOF appears to be content to make recommendations for
L2 providers.  Is this correct?

My two cents on this, is that the IETF is not really in a position to affect
change in L2 standards bodies this way.  By way of contrast, if the IETF
provided an RFC that defined a packet (or meta-packet) that an L2 layer 
could send/receive (out-of-band) perhaps to the IP stack, that would be
extremely useful and provide a nice clean solution to the L2 triggers issue.
Even if the IP layer simply provided a reflector service for these meta-
packets for subscribed  transports it would add huge amounts of flexibility
that must currently be done in proprietary ways. 

If the IETF wants to stay vague about this very simple concept that is
OK too, and I will show deference to general consensus.  I felt it was
important to express my thoughts (and apparantley other folks working
on other L2s have similar thoughts).  Also, since I got somewhat emotionally
attached to this idea (bad idea usually) I must beg for your pardons
for my occassional vitriolic embellishments in my responses.

Best regards,

Phillip D. Neumiller


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]>
To: "Alper E. YEGIN" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Charter Statement


> Hello,
>   Alper: thanks for your drafts. Please note that our
> BOF application has not yet been accepted.
> Maybe I should write lots of drafts and submit to PANA
> (just a joke).
>   Spencer: if you do not mind keeping L2 Trigger
> discussions on pilc mailing list then we should
> continue using pilc. If there is a problem, then maybe
> we can host a new mailing list.
>   Phil: your idea is unique and it may be worthwhile
> considering but only with a draft.
>   Regards,
> 
> --behcet
> --- "Alper E. YEGIN" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> > > > >
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/