Skip to main content

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 revision 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
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mingui Zhang , Anoop Ghanwani , Vishwas Manral , Ayan Banerjee
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
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2012-06-19
review-ietf-trill-clear-correct-genart-lc-shirazipour-2012-06-19-00
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