I'll leave it to Glenn and Janos to answer those questions. I believe that the text was written with the intent that it could be incorporated into the ID.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Erik Nordmark <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/23/2017 10:29 AM, Pat Thaler wrote: > >> Erik, >> >> The informative annexes explain how to use 802.1Q bridges to implement >> Pfivate VLANs. The capabilities that allow that are covered in the >> normative body of IEEE Std 802.1Q. >> >> The liaison includes suggested text for the ID describing details of >> configuring 802.1Q bridges to accomplish that including references to >> normative parts of 802.1Q. >> > > Pat, > > That's great. I initially missed those details in the liaison. > > Would it be OK to take that text from the liaison and add it as > information to the draft? And if so, should I acknowledge anybody in > particular or just the IEEE 802.1 committee? > > Thanks, > Erik > > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Erik Nordmark <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] >> *Sent:* March 22, 2017 4:26 AM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Juan >> Carlos Zuniga >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Suresh Krishnan >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; Wassim Haddad >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> *Cc:* Paul Nikolich <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>) >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; John >> Messenger <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> Janos Farkas <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[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]> >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> +1-613-963-8141 <tel:%2B1-613-963-8141> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
