Skip to main content

Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS
RFC 7176

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Ted Lemon)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -01)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -01)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-21 for -01)
From Carlos' OPS-DIR review:

This is a really well written document. It addresses operational considerations of backwards compatibility of the new protocol constructs defined. Other considerations for operational impact are covered in the base protocol.

Nits: RFC 5342 was obsoleted by RFC 7042 and the pointer should probably be updated.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -01)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-21 for -01)
Alexey Melnikov raised two valid points in his Gen-ART review. I'm hoping the draft is revised according to the discussion that took place after the review.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -01)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -01)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-23 for -02)
This draft is nicely written. Thank you for that.

I did have one comment. Please consider it along with any other comments you receive.

In 2.2.3 Appointed Forwarders Sub-TLV

   o  Start.VLAN, End.VLAN: These fields are the VLAN IDs of the
      appointment range, inclusive. To specify a single VLAN, the VLAN's
      ID appears as both the start and end VLAN. As specified in
      [RFC6439], appointing an IS forwarder on a port for a VLAN not
      enabled on that port has no effect. If the range specified is or
      includes the value 0x000 or 0xFFF, such values are ignored as they
      are not valid VLAN numbers and a port cannot be enabled for them.

and in 2.3.6 Interested VLANs and Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV

      -  VLAN.start and VLAN.end: This VLAN ID range is inclusive.
         Setting both VLAN.start and VLAN.end to the same value
         indicates a range of one VLAN ID. If VLAN.start is not equal to
         VLAN.end and VLAN.start is 0x000, the sub-TLV is interpreted as
         if VLAN.start was 0x001. If VLAN.start is not equal to VLAN.end
         and VLAN.end is 0xFFF, the sub-TVL is interpreted as if
         VLAN.end was 0xFFE. If VLAN.end is less than VLAN.start, the
         sub-TLV is ignored. If both VLAN.start and VLAN.end are 0x000
         or both are 0xFFF, the sub-TLV is ignored.

I THINK these descriptions are saying the same thing, but the description in 2.3.6 was more precise and more clear to me. If they are saying the same thing, I'd suggest using the 2.3.6 description in both places. 

For extra credit, the point from 2.2.3 that "0x000 and 0xFFF are not valid VLAN numbers and a port cannot be enabled for them" could usefully appear in both places.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -01)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)