[rbridge] [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

William -

I am attaching Mike Shand's post of 4/26 to the isis-wg. Perhaps you
never saw this if you are not a WG member.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simpson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:03 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: James Carlson; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); PPP Extensions; Donald
> Eastlake; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID
> 
> On 6/1/11 12:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > (Please include isis-wg on this thread.)
> >
> No.  It bounces, and ends up in my spam folder.  There's some kind of
> moderator for non-members.
> 
> 
> > I have a BIG PROBLEM with references to
> >
> >    [8] W. Simpson, "Generation of Unique IS-IS System Identifiers,"
> >         (draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique), work in progress, March
2011
> >
> > This has been publicly reviewed and noted (and I think quite
> correctly
> > so) as being seriously flawed. So even a passing suggestion that
this
> > might be a reasonable alternative for someone seems at best very
> > premature.
> >
> This is *NOT* true!  You have been aware of the draft for months, and
> had every opportunity to review.  The only comments you've sent me are
> neither textual nor protocol relevant.  Your comments were:
> 
> 
> On 4/25/11 1:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> # Is there a reason why the author is averse to bringing the draft to
> the
> # WG?
> #
> # Is there a reason why the WG chairs/ADs are not "encouraging" the
> author
> # to bring the draft to the WG?
> 
> 
> On 4/25/11 4:31 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> # I am not aware that you EVER sent this to IS-IS WG for comments. I
am
> # aware that it was discussed on the TRILL list and the TRILL folks -
> # quite correctly - said this had nothing to do w TRILL. I don't
follow
> # the PPP WG - but I could easily imagine that they would have said
the
> # same thing. As you propose a change in behavior for IS-IS
> # implementations which is visible on the wire:
> #
> # <snip>
> # After detecting a conflicting System Identifier in a neighbor, or
> #     receiving 3 or more IS-IS Hellos and failing to resolve
> participation
> #     in an area within 10 seconds, an implementation conforming with
> this
> #     specification MUST generate a replacement System Identifier
using
> one
> #     of the techniques specified above.
> # <end snip>
> #
> # it seems a bit obvious that the IS-IS WG would be an appropriate
> place
> # to pursue the work.
> #
> # As to the need for speed in publishing this, I would point out that
> the
> # IS-IS protocol has been successfully deployed for 20 years and this
> # issue has not been a show stopper. That is not to say that your
> proposal
> # may not have merit - but any suggestion that this is a precondition
> for
> # publishing other IS-IS related drafts is flawed in my opinion.
> #
> # I encourage you to submit the draft to the IS-IS WG.
> #
> Five (5) months ago, that might have been helpful, but the work has
> been
> completed and ready for publication for some time.  There is no need
to
> "pursue the work" in ISIS, since that implies there is more work.  I'm
> not interested in unpaid make-work projects.
> 
> There is no need to "submit" to ISIS.  There are no oaths of fealty
> involved.  I've included (and acknowledged) all the useful comments
> received from ISIS WG members.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Mike Shand (mshand)" <mshand at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique-00
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:17:11 -0700
Size: 7009
Url: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20110601/1deda882/attachment.mht