Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-06-06
Requested 2016-05-05
Authors Donald Eastlake, Mingui Zhang, Ayan Banerjee
Draft last updated 2016-06-06
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Martin Vigoureux (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Martin Vigoureux 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01-rtgdir-early-vigoureux-2016-06-06
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-06-06



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review Date: May 20, 2016
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

The draft is both quite well written and well structured such that I did 

not have to go back and forth in the doc.

As a result also, I have only very few editorial comments and questions.

Section 1
   If routers in the network do not agree on the topology
   classification of packets or links, persistent routing loops can
It is not clear if that could happen in mt-trill or if mt-trill solves that.

Section 1.1 goes beyond defining acronyms but specifies some pieces of 


   By implication, an "FGL TRILL switch" does not support MT.
   An MT TRILL switch MUST support FGL in the sense that it MUST be FGL
   safe [RFC7172].

Is this the right place to do this? By the way, this requirement is 

stated further down in the doc.

Section 2.2
s/and received/and receive/

Section 2.4
   Commonly, the topology of a TRILL Data packet is commonly
One superfluous occurrence of "commonly"

Section 2.4.1
It would be better to write "2/3" as "2 and 3"

   A TRILL switch advertising in a Hello on Port P support for topology
   T but not advertising in those Hellos that it requires explicit
   topology labeling is assumed to have the ability and configuration to
   correctly classify TRILL Data packets into topology T by examination
   of those TRILL Data packets and/or by using the fact that they are
   arriving at port P.
Does this mean that Value 1 is default behaviour?

Section 3.4.1
s/are determine/are determined/

Section 7
s/some links was more/some links were more/