Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04
review-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-01-19-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:                                     
draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04.txt

Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  18.01.2017

IETF LC End Date:                          10.01.2017

IESG Telechat date: (if known)   19.01.2017

Summary:                                       The document is almost ready for
publication, but there are some editorial nit that I'd like the authors to
address.

Major issues:                                 None

Minor issues:                                 None

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1:        In the Abstract and Introduction, please expand "TRILL" on first
occurrence.

Also, in general, the document does expand some acronyms on first occurrence,
while it does not expand others. Can the authors verify that all the acronyms
NOT expanded so called "well known" acronyms?

Q2:        Related to Q1. In section 1.2, you do expand TRILL, but it is
different than in RFC 6439. Is the intention really to change the meaning of
"TRILL"?

Q3:        In the Abstract and Introduction, I think it would be good to have a
reference to "Appointed Forwarder".

Q4:        The end of the introduction contains the following text:

"This documents obsoletes [RFC6439], updates [RFC6325], and updates [RFC7177],
as described in

                Appendix B."

That's all good, but I think it would be good to have a few words also in the
Introduction, explaining exactly what is obsoleted and updated.

Q5:        The end of the introduction contains the following text:

"It also includes reference implementation details.

              Alternative implementations that interoperate on the wire are

              permitted."

Is the last sentence really needed? I don't think an RFC can mandate the usage
of one specific implementation of the RFC.

Q6:        In the Security Considerations, please use "This document" instead
of "This memo", in order to have consistent terminology.