Re: [rbridge] proposed TRILL IS-IS System ID text

On 3/17/11 3:31 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> After some local difficulty, I've posted to the pppext list a separate
> draft. If somebody points me at another WG list, I'll post it there too.
>
> I'd be reasonably content to have the TRILL PPP draft reference my draft
> for resolution of the issue. Then, it can be discussed as many places
> as needed. As it is very simple and builds on existing standard's track
> protocols, I doubt that it's contentious.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext/current/msg00516.html

Since the IETF meeting starts tomorrow in Prague, and both TRILL and ISIS
meet on Monday, is anybody likely to be there and ask somebody over in the
ISIS WG whether they have any interest?  I'm planning on taking this
directly to RFC via Independent Submission.

So far, I've only received 2 private comments.

  1) about one reference in the PPP section.  I've checked, and that was
deprecated in [RFC1990].  So, I'll re-write to reference the earlier
decisions and language on the PPP list.  Nearly identical language
remains in [RFC1663].

  2) the 30 second timeout is too long.  That's easy to shorten, and
should probably have a random dither to avoid simultaneous changes.
How about 9-12 seconds inclusive?

It's pretty simple and uncontroversial.  But I'd still welcome any
word-smithing review!
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext