Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-
review-ietf-trill-clear-correct-genart-lc-shirazipour-2012-06-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-06-19
Requested 2012-06-07
Draft last updated 2012-06-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Meral Shirazipour
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-clear-correct-genart-lc-shirazipour-2012-06-19
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2012-06-19

Review
review-ietf-trill-clear-correct-genart-lc-shirazipour-2012-06-19

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

 

 

Document: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: June-18-2012

IETF LC End Date: June-20-2012

IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012

 

Summary:

The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, however I have a few comments.

 

 

 

Minor issues:

TRILL-PORT-VER sub-TLV should be "PORT-TRILL-VER" sub-TLV.(there are a few occurrences)

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

- Suggestion: [Page 6], line 2, spell out first occurrence LSP

 

- Suggestion: [Page 6], line 5, "overload bit on" ----> "overload bit set"

 

- Clarification:[Page 6], Section 2.1, line 5, add a comma "," after "traffic engineered frames"

 

- Typo:[Page 6], last word, "contain" --missing s--> "contains"

 

- Suggestion: [Page 7], Section 2.2, line 2, spell out first occurrence of "Reverse Path Forwarding Check" and then use "RPFC" in the rest of the document.

 

- Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, line 5, sentence starting with "RB2 MUST advertise ...": we could omit the second occurrence of "it might use" in that sentence.

 

- Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, 3rd line from last, "end stations connected to RB": "a RB" or "RBs"?

 

- Typo: [Page 11], Section 3.1,"( j, k)" --remove extra space--> "(j, k)"

 

- Suggestion: [Page 11], Section 3.2, "already in flight" ----> "already in transmission"

 

- Typo [Page 12]:"many multi-destination frame"--missing s--> "many multi-destination frames"

 

- Clarification:[Page 13], Point 4. , Sentence 2: suggested clarification:

"It does so by checking LSPs it receives and updating its link state database for any of its nicknames held with higher priority by another TRILL Switch that is IS-IS reachable."

 

- Typo [Page 14]:"unicast Channel message"--missing s-->"unicast Channel messages"

 

- Typo [Page 16]: Section 5.2,"Routeing" ----> "Routing"

 

- Suggestion:[Page 16],last sentence, suggestion: "This safety margin is called "Margin" below."

 

- Typo [Page 18]:"a specified in [RFC6325]"--missing s-->"as specified in [RFC6325]"

 

- Suggestion: [Page 19], spell out first occurrence of EISS

 

- Suggestion:[Page 21], Point 1, not clear what the new text becomes. Suggestion: refer to last paragraph of section 3.1 instead of paragraph before 3.2, and propose the new sentence.

 

- Clarification:[Page 21], Point 2, it is not clear what the change is to section 3.2 of RFC6327.

 

- Clarification:[Page 21], Point 3, it would be clearer to say "bullet A9 is added" (if this is an event like the rest of the bullets in section 3.3 of RFC6327)

 

- Clarification:[Page 22], section 10.1,"disagreement over the Designated VLAN or the like". Suggestion: replace the term "or the like" with other examples or remove the term.

 

-Typo: [Page 22], section 10.1, "each others frames"---->"each other's frames"

 

-Typo: [Page 24], "DRB SHOULD NOT appointed"---->"DRB SHOULD NOT appoint", "an VLAN"---->"a VLAN", "RBridged"---->"RBridge"

 

-Clarification:[Page 25], Section 11, Point 1, "The previously reserved", reference to document.

 

- Clarification: [page 19/page 27], Informative References, reference [802], to verify which standard we want to refer to for Canonical Format Indicator: 

If it is "IEEE Std 802-2001: IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture", then the date should be 7 February 2001."

However this specific document does not define CIF. You may want to refer to 802.1Q-2005.

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

Meral

 

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com