[rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure ports to disable end station traffic

[Anoop Ghanwani]

I'd be interested in finding out what caused the editors
to send out the consensus check.  Obviously there was 
some discussion about this at the Vancouver meeting and
some folks must've thought it was a good idea.

(I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know who supported
this.)

While I don't feel very strongly about having to put
this in the document, I think it would be useful.  I
disagree that it would be a "BAD idea" to put it in
the document - I see it as extra information to help
the implementer.

Anoop 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dinesh G Dutt [mailto:ddutt at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:07 AM
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: Anoop Ghanwani; James Carlson; Rbridge at postel.org; Joe Touch
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure ports to 
> disable end station traffic
> 
> I concur with Eric,
> 
> Dinesh
> Eric Gray wrote:
> > Anoop,
> >
> > 	Sorry to have to disagree with your well-intended 
> suggestion, but 
> > this is a BAD idea.
> >
> > 	The fact that we don't need to document it from a 
> interoperability 
> > perspective is sufficient reason not to do so.
> >
> > 	In addition, anything we document because we "know it 
> to be true and 
> > useful" we need to be certain is also immutable - even if 
> we also know 
> > that we need to include it in the specification.  Otherwise, it's a 
> > risk we are undertaking that what we "know to be true and useful"
> > will be false or dangerous next year.
> >
> > 	Hence the fact that we believe we could document it is 
> not sufficient 
> > reason to do so.  Therefore, to remove any possible ambiguity, the 
> > argument to avoid including this is sufficient while the 
> argument to 
> > include it is not.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Gray
> > Principal Engineer
> > Ericsson
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop at brocade.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:18 PM
> >> To: James Carlson; Eric Gray
> >> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Joe Touch
> >> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure 
> portstodisable end 
> >> stationtraffic
> >> Importance: High
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>     
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> >>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:51 AM
> >>> To: Eric Gray
> >>> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Joe Touch
> >>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure 
> portstodisable end 
> >>> stationtraffic
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>> I'd be ok with either intended option, but would slightly 
> prefer not 
> >>> bothering to document this special link behavior, as it 
> looks to me 
> >>> to be the sort of enhancement that vendors could cook up on their 
> >>> own without affecting either TRILL interoperability or ordinary 
> >>> RBridge operation.  It's not something I think is 
> strictly _needed_ 
> >>> in the TRILL document in order to make it complete ... though it 
> >>> seems Anoop does.
> >>>       
> >> I agree it's not absolutely needed, but now that we have 
> discussed it 
> >> on the mailing list, that we know it's useful, and that we 
> know the 
> >> potential problems, we might as well document it so we 
> don't have to 
> >> depend on every implementer figuring it out for themselves.
> >>
> >> Anoop
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rbridge mailing list
> > rbridge at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> >
> >   
> 
> --
> We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by 
> the depth of our answers.                               - Carl Sagan
> 
>