Re: [rbridge] Fwd: Working group last call for PPP TRILL [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-04.txt]

I am ok with the latest version.

Yizhou

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 1:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [rbridge] Fwd: [Pppext] Working group last call for PPP TRILL [was
I-D Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-04.txt]

Hi,

TRILL participant may be interested in the below Last Call in the
PPPEXT Working Group.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email protected]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Carlson <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Subject: [Pppext] Working group last call for PPP TRILL [was I-D
Action: draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-04.txt]
To: PPP Extensions <[email protected]>


[email protected] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point Protocol
Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
>
>       Title           : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol
>       Author(s)       : James Carlson
>       Filename        : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-04.txt
>       Pages           : 7
>       Date            : 2011-05-09

In this new version, I've removed stray footnote references from the
stand-alone Abstract section and added a bit of detail to the Security
Considerations -- specifically citing at least a few of the protocols
involved.  There's a slippery slope here, in that I could easily end up
describing all the possible deployment scenarios and incorporating
essentially all of rfc-index.txt by reference, but I hope I've struck a
reasonable balance.

I've left the system ID issue as an informative reference.  No matter
how I read this PPP document, providing system IDs is not a requirement
for implementing this protocol.  It _might_ be a requirement for IS-IS
implementations.  But the protocol described here isn't IS-IS.

So, with that, I'm starting up the last call period again.  Please
respond by May 23rd, 2011, if you have any comments.  After that date,
I'll ask the IESG to consider publishing.

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

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext