Subject: RE: draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-02.txt: Tagged mode

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:05:05 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Andrew Smith wrote:

> Well that really gets to the heart of my original point: is the IETF in
> the business of writing good standards or of rubber-stamping existing
> implementations and deployments? 

Good standards can not be looked at in isolation from existing
deployments. IETF is not a research body. There is a tradeoff between an
ideal standard and existing usage/deployment. In this case IMHO the
balance is towards existing usage/deployment as leaving the tagged mode
doesn't add undue complexity.

rahul

It's high time the IESG made a decision
> on this, specifically in the sub-IP area, and enforced whatever it
> decides its policy to be by culling and pruning WGs and/or WG products
> appropriately.
> 
> Andrew Smith
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Rahul Aggarwal
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-02.txt: Tagged mode
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Luca,
> 
> Wanted to re-iterate my comment about the tagged mode in the ethernet
> encapsulation draft. There is a value in having the tagged mode and
> there
> are several reasons for it:
>     - Bunch of existing implementations; inter-operability and some
>       deployment
>     - Router hardware that cannot insert vlan tags on the egress PE
> 
> Some people might argue that all can be achieved with the raw mode and a
> NSP function. No one is stopping them from using only the raw mode in
> that
> case :) But there are several of us who want the tagged mode to stay
> there
> and IMHO we should keep it that way.
> 
> thanks,
> rahul 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> 
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:18:48 -0800

--On 20. mars 2003 19:12 -0800 Andrew Smith <[email-masked]> wrote:

> implementations and deployments? It's high time the IESG made a decision

Andrew,

the IETF is in the business of doing what makes the Internet work.

In most cases, this means writing good standards. (not that we always 
manage to get even that part right!)

In many cases, those good standards need to describe how to live with 
existing implementations of things, some of which are the product of 
different traditions, some of which have questionable value, and some of 
which are downright stupid; some of this will have the *appearance* of 
blessing the non-IETF thing (IP over ATM, anyone?), and some of it will be 
used by proponents of that other thing as proof of "the IETF likes this", 
no matter how carefully we construct our documents to say differently.

And sometimes, of course, there are things that are just right, and the 
IETF should bless them and move on, rather than to succumb to the "not 
invented here" syndrome and invent Yet Another Way To Do It.

I have no idea which of those categories the particular topic you raise is 
in; the experts in the technology are part of the working group (I 
sincerely hope!), and we need to see the arguments from the working group 
before deciding.

This is not a yes/no answer to your question. But I hope it's still 
useful....

                Harald