Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-06-27
Requested 2016-06-15
Authors Donald Eastlake, Li Yizhou, Mohammed Umair, Ayan Banerjee, fangwei hu
Draft last updated 2016-06-27
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 Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-01-rtgdir-early-halpern-2016-06-27
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-06-27


This is a QA review, intended to provide an additional perspective, 

requested by the TRIL chairs and Routing ADs.

The reviewer understands that the WG last call has completed, and hopes 

that this review will prove helpful to the working group.

[For clarity, the above is written before performing the review.]

This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major: N/A

Minor: N/A


    Section 2.2 base has two bullet items.  the first appears to be a 

subset of the second.  Is this deliberate?

    The counter-example at the end of the second paragraph of section 

2.4 seems to be missing some limitation that would explain it.  (It is 

possible this is more obvious to a reader who is more conversant with 

TRILL, but there does seem to be something missing.)


    In section 10.4 defining the FGL-VLAN Mapping Bitmap APPsub-TLV, 

the diagram calls the fifth field "Starting FGL".  The text below that 

refers to it the field simply as "FGL".  I believe the text should also 

name it "Starting FGL".

Side note: I really appreciate the thorough additional explanations as 

to the reasons various actions are safe or unsafe.  Thank you.

Joel M. Halpern