Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-10-20
Requested 2015-10-15
Authors Donald Eastlake, Mingui Zhang, Radia Perlman, Ayan Banerjee, Anoop Ghanwani, Sujay Gupta
Draft last updated 2015-11-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Russ White (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-06-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-11-06
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-11-06


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at



Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.


Document: draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-06

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour (was originally assigned to another gen-art)

Review Date: 2015-10-19

IETF LC End Date:  2015-10-19

IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-22




This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments .



Major issues:


Minor issues:

-[Page 5], Section 1.1: this section updates section 1.2 of RFC6325. The update is about conflict resolution between sections of the RFC.

Shouldn't this bis highlight those conflicts if any?


-[Page 14], Section 3.4. Should this section have a MUST sentence just before the last sentence?

"All RBridges in a campus MUST determine distribution trees in the same way "


-[Page 10], Section , gives an example, then the first bullet after the figure explains the problem with that scenario and says "MUST NOT be locally distributed in native form ".


Is it possible to clarify what should be done instead?


-[Page 11], last line, "forwards the packet on that tree." 

Just checking if that is supposed to say "packet" or if it should say "frame" or "TRILL Data packet"?


Naming ("frame" or "TRILL Data packet") are used throughout,  but it would help to mention the convention at the beginning of the draft.



Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 6], Section 1.3,  "RBridge - An alternative name for a TRILL Switch."

To remain true to RFC7325, better to add Routing Bridge: "RBridge - Routing Bridge, an alternative name for a TRILL Switch."


-[Page 15], Section 3.6 , "can implemented"--typo-->"can implement"


-[Page 16], Section 3.6.1 , "program their hardware tables",

is it assumed that TRILL fast path will only/always be HW based?


-[Page 17], "RB1 is show with three ports"--typo-->"RB1 is shown with three ports"


-[Page 34], "then behavior is as specified"---> "the behavior" or "then the behavior"


-[Page 35], Section 10.2.2, "those capabilites"--typo-->"those capabilities"



Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour