Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Multi-Topology
RFC 8377
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
The extensions defined in this document are "an optional TRILL switch capability". To me, that indicates that the base TRILL specifications rfc6325 and rfc7177 (in this case) are not affected: an RBridge is TRILL-compliant as long as it implements what rfc6325 specifies (without these optional extensions). I would then like to see the formal "Updates" tags removed. [The publication of this document is not the place to argue about the meaning of "Updates", so I'll defer to what the Responsible AD decides.]
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection
Review in context: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3642 A diagram in the introduction would have helped me. Grained Label [RFC7172]. By implication, an "FGL TRILL switch" does not support MT. You are using MT before expansion here. But I actually don't understand why it does not. Can you explain? implication, a "VL RBridge" or "VL TRILL switch" does not support FGL or MT. My same question here as above. Why can't a VL TRILL switch support MT? (1) all TRILL switch ports on the link advertise topology T support in their Hellos and (2) if any TRILL switch port on the link requires explicit TRILL Data Probably stupid question but how do you know that there aren't TRILL switches that you haven't heard from yet that don't support T? V - The version number of the MT label. This document specifies version zero. What do I do if I receive an unknown version? + There may be non-zero topologies with no multi-destination traffic or, as descried in [RFC5120], even topologies with no traffic at all. For example, if only known destination Nit: described topology, there would be no need for a distribution tree for topology T. For this reasons, a Number of Trees to Compute of zero in the Trees sub-TLV for the TRILL switch holding Nit: "reason"
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Record
Apologies, I ran out of time for this one.