Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03
review-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03-rtgdir-early-bocci-2015-08-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-08-10 | |
Requested | 2015-08-10 | |
Authors | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Linda Dunbar , Radia Perlman , Yizhou Li | |
I-D last updated | 2015-08-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -03
by Matthew Bocci
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Daniel Fox Franke (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tianran Zhou (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Matthew Bocci |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03-rtgdir-early-bocci-2015-08-10
|
|
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Has Issues | |
Completed | 2015-08-10 |
review-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03-rtgdir-early-bocci-2015-08-10-00
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03.txt Reviewer: Matthew Bocci Review Date: July 2015 IETF LC End Date: Unknown Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: The draft is mostly ready for publication, but I have some comments related to which procedures are mandatory to implement, and which are optional (see minor issues below). I've flagged this because in my experience it is very important for an RFC to be crystal clear about what is mandatory for successful interoperability. Major Issues: No major issues. Minor Issues: In general, it is very unclear if it is mandatory to implement both push and pull, or if it is adequate to just implement one or the other. I appreciate that a hybrid mode is possible, in which case an implementation would need to support both, but this is only described at the end in section 4, almost as an afterthought. It would be much better if the draft could be clear up-front which is the mandatory (default) mode, or if both must be implemented if the expectation is that the default operating model is hybrid. Section: "1. Introduction" 1st Paragraph: Last sentence "These mechanisms are optional to implement." This statement seems redundant, since technically the whole RFC is optional unless another RFC makes a normative reference to it :) I think you should either remove this statement, or use it to clarify which modes are optional and which are mandatory. Pg14: "If information previously pulled is about to expire, a TRILL switch MAY try to refresh it by issuing a new pull request but, to avoid unnecessary requests, SHOULD NOT do so if it has not been recently used." Can you give more information on what you mean by "recently"? Some non-normative guidance might be helpful to prevent wildly differing or unpredictable behaviours in a multi-vendor deployment. Nits: - There are a few uncommon acronyms. Please expand all acronyms on first use. - Pg4 s/MacDA/MAC DA - Pg8 s/angel bracket/angle bracket