[rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes

[Radia Perlman]

A couple of corrections:

Under "VLANs" you don't say what was presented, just the discussion 
afterwards.
Here's a summary of what was presented:

Presented a modified design, where the "egress RBridge" is included in 
the header
(between the outer header, which bridges would see, and the inner frame 
which is
exactly as transmitted by the endnode). Forwarding is to the egress 
RBridge.
This enables the core to forward solely based on egress RBridge, and not 
need
to have endnode addresses in forwarding tables. It also means that only 
RBridges
attached to a particular VLAN need to know about the endnodes in that VLAN.

******
As for my answer to Bob Hinden...the comment in the minutes was really 
sort of
a joke that I was making, and not the real answer. After I made the 
comment about
being guilty of doing what is one of my pet peeves (solving one thing 
rather than
looking at the bigger picture), I said what the real answer was, which
was that at that point in time they would never have considered adding
an encapsulation header. It would have made the devices too complex, and 
there were
hard limits on frame sizes.

So for simplicity, I'd remove:

Radia Perlman: I wasn't provided with the whole problem, just told to
develop a spanning protocol.

and replace it with:
Radia Perlman: At that point in time they would never have
considered adding an encapsulation header. It would have made
the devices too complex and there were hard limits on
frame sizes.