Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-09-15
Requested 2015-09-01
Authors Hongjun Zhai, Tissa Senevirathne, Radia Perlman, Mingui Zhang, Li Yizhou
Draft last updated 2015-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Russ White (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-05-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-09-11
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-11


I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.


This draft is written very clear, but I have a few questions:




Mechanism proposed by this draft is to solve the same problem by “draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach”. Are those two mechanisms equally good? Is there any pros and cons comparing those two mechanisms (i.e. the Pseudo name vs. Active-Active
 attachment protocol? 



The end of the Section 3 has a note on how to reduce the consumption of nicknames. What if CE1 is connected to RB1/RB2, CE2 is connected to RB2/RB3, and CE3 is connected to RB1/RB3, do you need total of 3 Pseudo nicknames for them? Plus
 the original nicknames for RB1, RB2, and RB3, so total of 6 nicknames are needed for this configuration, correct?



Linda Dunbar