Re: Some Comments on: draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt
At 23:20 17/08/00 -0700, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Works for me.
>At 01:37 PM 8/17/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>>I will send the following to Scott at the end of this week.
>>Scott, it has been difficult to get a consensus response from IEEE 802 on
>>this work, since many people are on vacation, and this is a contentious
>>issue, although most responses I have received from individuals to-date have
>>been negative. The two key people, organizationally, would be Tony Jeffree
>>(chair of 802.1) and Geoff Thompson (chair of 802.3). I ask Geoff and Tony
>>to further submit comments to Scott if they feel warranted.
>>I would like to invite the proponents of this RFC (regardless of what
>>decision IETF takes) to the November IEEE 802 plenary meeting and give a
>>tutorial on this topic and participate in 802.1. This will serve to
>>disseminate this information into IEEE 802 so that appropriate projects,
>>actions or non-actions can be taken.
>>Summarizing various individual comments and notes on this topic:
>>1) The choice of frame size for Ethernet packets is really the domain of
>>802.3 (CSMA/CD) and 802.1 (Bridging, VLANs). The last time the frame size
>>was modified to increase by four bytes due to VLANs, 802.1 initiated this
>>work and 802.3 also modified the Ethernet standard to include these extra
>>bytes. The people with the experience dealing with this sort of thing attend
>>IEEE 802. It's easy to define a new ethertype, but it's not too easy to
>>figure out what happens when these frames get (sometimes) forwarded by
>>bridges. I would expect discussions of this type to take place in 802.1.
>>2) This issue has come up several times in 802.3. It has significant
>>problems in terms of compatibility with the installed base. This topic has
>>been discussed in the back halls of 802.3, but not brought forward. The
>>problem is that it is very easy to do in the standard and hard to do in the
>>world. It is just like changing the gauge on railroad tracks. All you have
>>to do is change one line in the standard, never mind all of the rails you
>>have to move. For this project to be done in 802.3, there would need to be a
>>consensus, and this may be difficult. This draft is just meant for carrying
>>IS-IS routing protocol frames (the IS-IS working group is the intended
>>sponsor of this draft) yet this appears to be a way to get the fox into the
>>chicken coop. Those vendors supporting the larger frame will support this,
>>those vendors not supporting the larger frame will not support this.
>>3) One suggestion is a Recommended Practice, along the lines of 802.1H,
>>dealing with protocol encoding of Ethernet Type II frames over arbitrary
>>4) Most of the gear produced today would be intolerant of greatly longer
>>frames. There is no way proposed to distinguish between frame types in the
>>network. Bridges and repeaters would drop or truncate (and cause errors
>>doing so) frames right and left for uncharacterized reasons. It would be a
>>mess. It's all okay for small carefully characterized networks. It would be
>>very difficult to do across the standard.
>>Jim Carlo(firstname.lastname@example.org) Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
>>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
>>Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
>>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Scott Bradner [mailto:email@example.com]
>> >Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 3:47 PM
>> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Subject: draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt
>> > What is the status of teh IEEE looking at
>> >draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt? The IESG has bene asked to publish
>> >the Internet draft as an Informational RFC. If the IEEE has
>> >comments the IESG needs to get them in the next week or so (we have a
>> >teleconference on 8/24 during which we will authorize publication
>> >unless the IEEE gives us reason not to.