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

On 1/25/11 2:04 PM, James Carlson wrote:
> 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 agree with the other reviewers.  Pretty hard to understand TRILL over
PPP without mentioning System IDs and the lack of MAC addresses.

This is the first Last Call we've had on the list for years, so I wasn't
paying sufficient attention.  I'm sure we'll iron things out.


> 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.
>
Probably not.  But it's fundamentally wrong to specify a configuration
requirement for two protocols that are both premised on auto-configuration!

I'm sorry that I was off-line yesterday.  We've had responses about the
requirements, and that clarifies things immensely.  But I'm busy cleaning up
yesterday's mess today.  I promise some text tomorrow....  TIA!
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext