On 03/22/2017 02:30 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga wrote:
Dear IntArea WG,
Please note that we have received the attached liaison letter from the
IEEE 802.1 WG with respect to “IP over intentionally partially
partitioned links” draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl-05.
I don't see the document listed on
http://www.ieee802.org/Communications.shtml#Comm_1703
Will it be added there so we can refer to it?
Some more detailed comments below:
1. The tone of the draft should be, "how a router can take advantage of the
Asymmetric (Private) VLAN feature offered by 802.1Q bridges."
2. Modifying the section in question to describe how it works, without any
conformance language on bridge behavior but explaining 802.1Q standard
bridge configuration instead.
3. Make a normative reference to 802.1Q.
My bad; I thought I already had it as a reference.
However, I'm not sure it can be normative since both annex B and annex F
are marked as informational in 802.1Q-1998. It wasn't clear to me that
there is sufficient material in the normative parts of 802.1Q-1998 to
describe the required behaviors for promiscuous, community, and isolated
ports.
If the 802.1 group is asserting that all of those behaviors are
(optional) parts of the 802.1Q-1998 standard it would be helpful to know
that.
In addition, if possible, also to have more specific references to
normative sections in 802.1Q which describe this behavior.
We'd still need some explanatory text in the draft to map between the
802.1Q terminology and the "promiscuous, community, isolated"
terminology that is used in industry. Before seeing the test I can't
tell whether such text would need to have RFc2119 terms to describe the
mapping. However, I don't think that would be a constraints on bridge
implementations but instead statements of the form "for the purposes if
running IP over 802.1Q we assume that promisc/community/isolated ports
are configured as follows using the 802.1Q asymetric VLAN standard...
But that is predicated on the all the necessary "private VLAN" behaviors
being part of the IEEE 802.1Q-1998 standard. So I'd be greatful for
clarifications on that point before I start editing the draft.
Thanks,
Erik
If you have any comments, please send them to the list.
We will also allocate some time for to discuss about this during our
meeting in Chicago.
Best,
Juan-Carlos & Wassim
(IntArea WG co-chairs)
*From:*Glenn Parsons [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* March 22, 2017 4:26 AM
*To:* [email protected]; Juan Carlos Zuniga
<[email protected]>; Suresh Krishnan
<[email protected]>; Wassim Haddad <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Paul Nikolich <[email protected]> ([email protected])
<[email protected]>; John Messenger <[email protected]>;
Janos Farkas <[email protected]>; [email protected]
*Subject:* Liaison from IEEE 802.1 WG to IETF IntArea WG
Please find attached a liaison from the IEEE 802.1 WG.
I will be available to present this during the IntArea WG meeting.
This is in regards to your agenda item #4.
Cheers,
Glenn.
--
Glenn Parsons - Chair, IEEE 802.1
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
+1-613-963-8141
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
