Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-26
Requested 2013-11-14
Authors Samer Salam, Tissa Senevirathne, Sam Aldrin, Donald Eastlake
Draft last updated 2013-11-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03-genart-lc-dupont-2013-11-25
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-11-25


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131126
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 3 and 9 page 30: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1.1 page 5 (ECMP): Pathing -> Path

 - 2.1 page 6 and many other places: e.g. -> e.g.,
  (and i.e. -> i.e., too... First at 2.4 page 12)

 - 2.6 page 12: ask the RFC Editor to manage to get the title not
  at the very end of the page

 - 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 page 26: in group item titles you put "/" and ","
  separators, for instance:
   - VLAN / Fine grain label / Flow parameters
   - Target RBridge Nickname (unicast), Tree Identifier (Multicast) and
   IP multicast group
  Is there a good reason? And BTW the IP multicast group is for the
  multicast case. Note my comment is only about the wording: the spec
  is very easy to understand.

 - 6.1.7 page 27 (and 6.1.8 page 28): in Repeat Count
  "For proactive monitoring this may be set to allow for infinite
  what is the recommended value to set the counter (or with other words
  how is encoded the infinite)?

 - 10.2 page 31 (TRILL-BFD): Interconnetion -> Interconnection
  (Note the spelling error is in the referenced I-D itself but
   it has at least one common author)


Francis.Dupont at

PS: my spell checker insists about congruency (the correct term is
congruence) and IMHO it is right...