[rbridge] Proposed changes to the architecture based on IETF-70...

[Eric Gray]

James,

	Also, from the minutes of the last meeting:

"Designated RBridge (DRB) text in architecture document doesn't follow
 the protocol document in providing for DRB to assign encaps/decaps
 role. It should describe the constraint - that the protocol must have
 a mechanism so that a native frame is not encaps by more than one RB.

"Eric Gray: I'll change that."

Note that - while this part of the minutes provides an "encapsulated"
(like the pun?) form of the actual discussion, and is sufficient to
justify the need for the changes I proposed - it does not really do
justice to the entire discussion.  Hopefully it is not actually going
to be necessary to repeat the entire discussion at the next meeting.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson at sun.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Proposed changes to the architecture 
> based on IETF-70...
> Importance: High
> 
> Eric Gray writes:
> > Several people pointed out that the architecture should not assume a
> > DRB election process will be used.  This is technically correct, and
> > - for that reason - not directly something that needs consensus to
> > change, at least in theory.
> 
> Could someone please post the problem statement?  Besides just making
> the DRB election "optional," I think it'd be good to have a summary
> statement of what problem is solved by making it possible to run
> without DRB election.
> 
> (I'm guessing this was discussed somewhere ... but I wasn't able to
> locate it in the archives.)
> 
> -- 
> 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
>