Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Adjacency
RFC 7177

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Ted Lemon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-08 for -03)
No email
send info
I agree with the concerns expressed by Brian and Adrian.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-03 for -02)
No email
send info
I couldn't find a clear statement of what parts of RFC 6325 are being 
updated. Is the intention of the "updates" metadata and the text that
says:
   In case of conflict between this document and [RFC6325], this
   document prevails.
...just in case this document creates a conflict with 6325?
I would prefer that "updates" was used to reflect a deliberate and
conscious change, and that such a change was called out.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-11)
No email
send info
Former DISCUSS text for the record:

I agree with Adrian's concern to the point where I am raising this to a DISCUSS.  The document currently contains an appendix that describes the differences between this document and 6327 but not a section that describes what is being updated from 6325.  In response to Adrian's comment, the authors said that it is possible they created a conflict and just wanted to force readers of 6325 to read 6327bis.  *If* 6327bis is updating 6325, it should clearly spell out how it relates to 6325.  Adding a section similar to the appendix describing the changes from 6327 should suffice.  Another outcome would be that the authors discover that there is not an Updates relationship and the meta-tag is dropped.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection