Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Multi-Topology
draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-06
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-05 for -05)
Unknown
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.]
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-08 for -05)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Record
No Record
(2018-03-07 for -05)
Unknown
Apologies, I ran out of time for this one.