Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-03

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
Request Early review on draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 12)
Result Has issues
Completed 2015-08-10


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


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


I have some minor concerns about this

document that I think should be resolved before publication. 


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 



"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.   



- There are a few uncommon acronyms. Please expand all acronyms on first use.

- Pg4 s/MacDA/MAC DA

- Pg8 s/angel bracket/angle bracket