Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01
review-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01-rtgdir-early-vigoureux-2016-06-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 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 E. Eastlake 3rd , 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 E. Carpenter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Martin Vigoureux |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01-rtgdir-early-vigoureux-2016-06-06
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Has Nits | |
| Completed | 2016-06-06 |
review-ietf-trill-multi-topology-01-rtgdir-early-vigoureux-2016-06-06-00
Hi, 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 occur. 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 technology: 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/