Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-08
review-ietf-trill-over-ip-08-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-12-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-01-03
Requested 2016-12-04
Requested by Susan Hares
Other Reviews Tsvart Early review of -10 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -15 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -16 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ines Robles
Review review-ietf-trill-over-ip-08-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-12-27
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/8Ytb91wUVRz2WRSxL5U5vRqcUI8
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 17)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2016-12-27
Review completed: 2016-12-27

Review
review-ietf-trill-over-ip-08-rtgdir-early-robles-2016-12-27

Hi,

QA review for "TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) over IP" I-D:


Document: draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-08.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: December 28, 2016

Intended Status: Proposed Standard 


Summary:

 I believe the draft is technically good. I have some minor comments.


Comments:


	Major Issues:

		I have no “Major” issues with this I-D.

	Minor Issues and Nits:

		Section 1: Introduction

			- I would add a reference to [draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08] when IPv6 is mentioned.


		Section 2: Terminology

			- In RBridge definition, I would add a reference to [RFC6325]

			- In VNI definition, I would extend VXLAN - "...In Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348]..."


		Section 3: Use Cases for TRILL over IP

			The text of the uses cases is clear. However, I think it would be nice to add a graph for each use case like: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/trill-13.pdf (Slide 4 and 5) 

		Section 4.5: TRILL Over IP IS-IS SubNetwork Point of Attachment

			I think it would be nice to add in the text the meaning of "111111" depicted in the figure.

		Section 8.1: Congestion Considerations

			I would expand ECMP in the 3rd paragraph. 

		Section 9.2.3.2

			I think it would be nice to add a reference to RFC 7172 when Inner.FGL is mentioned.

		Section 11.1: Port Assignments

			I would add the registry for this request - "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" [https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml]



Thank you very much,

Ines.