Re: [rbridge] working group last call for PPP TRILL protocol control protocol [was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-02.txt]

Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> IMHO there should be no mention of IS-IS in the PPP draft. As IS-IS is
> a control plane protocol (we could as well use static Rbridge route
> entries - a requirement we have heard from 2 of our customers) and PPP
> is the data plane.

I assume you're talking about the discussion of the System ID issue, and
not the TLSP Packet Format described in section 2.3 for carrying IS-IS
packets.  (If you *do* mean TLSP, then I'll probably need some
additional clarification.)

I certainly agree with the sentiment (I don't like duplicating
documentation at all, particularly for this issue), but the existing
notation about MAC addresses (and the lack of them on PPP) was added at
the behest of other reviewers who found that it was confusing to match
up the PPP TRILL draft with the primary TRILL documentation without some
indication that there are differences here.

I find I'm walking a narrow line.  I want to provide a little guidance
so that it's clear what's expected here, but I also want to avoid either
just copying hunks of the TRILL and IS-IS documentation or (worse)
carving out special exceptions.  I probably can't please everyone.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext