Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates
RFC 7780
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
Based on a scan of the changes compared to the obsoleted and updated RFCs in appendix C, I don't see any changes that would impact OPS.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
I would like to thank Meral for the extensive and detailed Gen-ART review.
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
The security considerations text left me wondering what "some" of the changes were as there is only one consideration listed. Are there considerations for this change: Appendix C.2 3. Change for the requirement to use the RPF check in [RFC6325] for multi-destination TRILL Data packets by providing an alternative stronger RPF check. Or for any other changes? Thanks.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection