Skip to main content

Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification
RFC 6325

Yes

(Ralph Droms)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2010-02-18)
This is excellent work and very carefully crafted text. Thank you.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-02-18)
Please close on the minor comments and nits raised in Acee Lindem's
Routing Area Directorate review.

Please fix Radia's coordinates as her email currently bounces.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-01-20)
I found the document surprisingly well-written and easy to 
understand (despite the complex topic).

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-02-17)
Stylistic quibbles with section 3: 
(1) IMHO, the TRILL header figure should include the header Options field.
(2) Section 3.5 should be renamed "Op-length" and should focus on Op-length
(3) The bulk of the current 3.5 should be moved to a new section 3.8 "TRILL Header Options"
These changes would ensure that the figure 3.1 and subsequent list are parallel with
the remainder of section 3.

Non-stylistic quiblle with section 3: When the data link layer is IEEE [802.3], are there any
constraints on Op-length to ensure that the 64 alignment is maintained?
(Found the answer in section 4, but wonder if it should be mentioned earlier!)

Section 3.7.3, fourth bullet, first sentence:

Sorry to nitpick, but should we explicitly state that when the most significant bit is set to 1,
this indicates the nickname value was configured?

Section 4.1.1, first paragraph after Figure 4.2

Another Nit, but if RBridges are permitted to support a subset of the VLAN IDs, couldn't
we have a situation where two implementations supported disjoint ranges and were not
interoperable?  Or a I misreading that text?

Section 4.1.3, second paragraph first sentence.

Shouldn't this sentence state that TRILL framesforwarded by a transit RBridge use the
priority present in the Outer.VLAN tag as received?