Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04
review-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-01-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-03
Requested 2016-12-20
Draft last updated 2017-01-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-01-19
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-01-19

Review
review-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-01-19

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.



Document:                                      draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04.txt

Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  18.01.2017

IETF LC End Date:                          10.01.2017

IESG Telechat date: (if known)   19.01.2017



Summary:                                       The document is almost ready for publication, but there are some editorial nit that I'd like the authors to address.



Major issues:                                 None



Minor issues:                                 None



Nits/editorial comments:



Q1:        In the Abstract and Introduction, please expand "TRILL" on first occurrence.



Also, in general, the document does expand some acronyms on first occurrence, while it does not expand others. Can the authors verify that all the acronyms NOT expanded so called "well known" acronyms?



Q2:        Related to Q1. In section 1.2, you do expand TRILL, but it is different than in RFC 6439. Is the intention really to change the meaning of "TRILL"?



Q3:        In the Abstract and Introduction, I think it would be good to have a reference to "Appointed Forwarder".



Q4:        The end of the introduction contains the following text:



"This documents obsoletes [RFC6439], updates [RFC6325], and updates [RFC7177], as described in

                Appendix B."



That's all good, but I think it would be good to have a few words also in the Introduction, explaining exactly what is obsoleted and updated.



Q5:        The end of the introduction contains the following text:



"It also includes reference implementation details.

              Alternative implementations that interoperate on the wire are

              permitted."



Is the last sentence really needed? I don't think an RFC can mandate the usage of one specific implementation of the RFC.



Q6:        In the Security Considerations, please use "This document" instead of "This memo", in order to have consistent terminology.