Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Address Flush Message
RFC 8383

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-02-07 for -05)
No email
send info
I appreciate the detail in the shepherd's writeup concerning the initial IPR disclosure. However, another  (third party) disclosure was entered yesterday. I will leave this to Alia to decide, but I wonder if the WG shouldn't have some time to consider that disclosure prior to the IESG, and perhaps to give the first party for that disclosure a chance to disclose terms.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-02-07 for -05)
No email
send info
NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem (and have no cycles)" sense.

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Comment (2018-02-06 for -05)
No email
send info
This is probably a dumb question but I notice that there's no
filtering here for for example, VLAN IDs which the sending agent
doesn't seem to be relevant for. Can you explain why that's not
needed/desirable?

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2018-02-07 for -05)
No email
send info
I have some non-blocking comments/questions:

(1) Why are the 2 VLAN Block encodings needed?  More important, when should each be used?  Section 2.2 says that "All RBridges implementing the Address Flush RBridge Channel message MUST implement types 1 and 2, the VLAN types...", but I didn't see anything about the VLAN Block Only Case (2.1).  I'm wondering if there will be cases where the support won't match and the message will then be ineffective.

(2) In the 2.2.* sections, the description of some of the TLVs says (when the Length is incorrect) that "...the Address Flush message MUST be discarded if the receiving RBridge implements Type x".  What if that type is not supported -- I would assume you still want to discard?  BTW, the Type 5 description doesn't qualify dropping based on the type support.

(2a) Other descriptions (type 1,2,6) just talk about ignoring (not discarding).  Is there an intended difference in the behavior?

(3) Section 2 says that "Address Flush protocol messages are usually sent as multi-destination packets...Such messages SHOULD be sent at priority 6".  It is not clear to me whether unicast packets (mentioned later) should also have the same priority.

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2018-02-07 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks to everyone who contributed to writing this document.

I'm concerned that the interaction between the various extensible Address Flush
message TLVs isn't very clearly spelled out. As far as I can tell, the text that
attempts to describe the interactions is:

>     If the set of MAC addresses accumulated from parsing the address
>  flush message is null, the message applies to all MAC addresses.
>     If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV is
>  true, then the address flush message applies to all Data Labels and
>  the set of Data Labels and block of Data labels specified has no
>  effect. If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV
>  is false, then the address flush messages applies only to the set of
>  Data Labels accumulated from parsing the message; if that set is
>  null, the address flush message does nothing.

Based on this (and the fact that their implementation is optional), I infer
that the MAC address TLVs are intended to further restrict the addresses
indicated by TLV types 1 through 5, rather than expand upon them. I'm less
sure about whether they have any impact on Type 6. I would expect that they
do, but the text above ("applies to all Data Labels") kind of sounds like they
don't.

What would seem to make sense here (inasmuch as it provides maximal flexibility)
is:

if (TLV7 ∪ TLV8 = {})
  Addresses to Flush = (TLV1 ∪ TLV2 ∪ TLV3 ∪ TLV4 ∪ TLV5 ∪ TLV6)
else
  Addresses to Flush = (TLV1 ∪ TLV2 ∪ TLV3 ∪ TLV4 ∪ TLV5 ∪ TLV6) ∩ (TLV7 ∪ TLV8)

If that's the intention, I think the normative explanation needs to be clearer.
If that's not the intention, I sill think the normative explanation needs to be
clearer.

My remaining comments are editorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand the following acronyms upon first use and in the title;
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance.

 - TRILL
 - TC
 - TCN
 - MSTP

While the following terms are defined in cited documents, you may wish to also
consider expanding them in this document's acronym list for the convenience of
the reader:

 - MAC
 - FCS

Finally, please explain the use of "RB1" in the Introduction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  Another example is based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
>  Topology") presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network via
>  multiple RBridge ports.

This should be either:

   Another example, based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
   Topology"), presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network via
   multiple RBridge ports.

or...

   Another example is based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
   Topology"), which presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network
   via multiple RBridge ports.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1.1:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

This document makes use of lowercase versions of these terms as well; please
consider using the RFC 8174 boilerplate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>  VLANs/FGLs if it occurs in any TLV in the address flush message. A
>  MAC addresses might be indicated more than once due to overlapping

"A MAC address..." or "MAC addresses..."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>  MAC addresses if it occurs in any TLV in the address flush message.
>     If the set of MAC addresses accumulated from parsing the address
>  flush message is null, the message applies to all MAC addresses.
>     If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV is
>  true, then the address flush message applies to all Data Labels and

The staggered indenting here looks a bit odd. Were these intended to be a
bulleted list?