RE: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-02.txt: Tagged mode

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@redback.com>]

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: pwe3-admin@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Rahul Aggarwal
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:23 PM
> To: pwe3@ietf.org
> Cc: luca@level3.net
> 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
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> 
>