Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01
review-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-01-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-01-22
Requested 2014-01-09
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Tissa Senevirathne , Anoop Ghanwani , Dinesh Dutt , Ayan Banerjee
I-D last updated 2014-01-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2014-01-20
review-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-01-20-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 


Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 


<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.






Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 


you may receive.




Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2014-01-20
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-22
IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23


Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

o  Label: This carries the fine-grained label identifier for all
      subsequent MAC addresses in this sub-TLV, or the value zero if no
      label is specified.




I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly "fine-grained 


label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is defined later in 


the document, can you please add a forward reference. If it is defined 


in another document, can you please add a reference to that.





In Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1:



What are the requirements on backward compatibility between different 


versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid 


for version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them 


in the document.






Nits/editorial comments: None