Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Adjacency
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)
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)
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
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.