Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-00: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm having trouble understanding what function this specification serves given that the RBridge Channel Protocol registry has a range reserved already for private use and that the document doesn't specify any requirements around vendor-specific protocol semantics. So any implementation of this that needs to interoperate with another implementation will need to do so according to some specification generated by the vendor, and that specification can select a code point from the private use range. What does allocating a single code point for all such vendor-specific protocols achieve, aside from specifying a structured way of conveying the OUI/CID (which seems superfluous anyway for multiple implementations from a single vendor interoperating with each other)? _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill