[rbridge] Consensus Check: C-Tags

[James Carlson]

Eric Gray writes:
> 	However, it is possible that additional specification may
> be needed.  Any such additional specification could be treated 
> as out of scope (for now).  To tell the truth, I am unconvinced
> of the need to do that - but I can live with a WG decision to
> do so.
> 
> 	But it is essentially wrong - IMHO - to assert that S-TAG
> use cannot be done without further specification.

Out of scope == not addressed by this specification.

Once we've called it "out of scope," I don't really care whether an
additional document is _needed_ to complete that effort.  I suspect
one will be needed, and you seem to be asserting that one will not,
but I also think that it's completely immaterial for this document.

Ruling it out of scope means that we don't have to have the discussion
about what (if anything) to do about provider bridging _now_.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677