Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification
RFC 6325

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2010-02-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
This is excellent work and very carefully crafted text. Thank you.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-01-20)
No email
send info
I found the document surprisingly well-written and easy to 
understand (despite the complex topic).

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-02-18)
No email
send info
Please close on the minor comments and nits raised in Acee Lindem's
Routing Area Directorate review.

Please fix Radia's coordinates as her email currently bounces.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-02-17)
No email
send info
Stylistic quibbles with section 3: 
(1) IMHO, the TRILL header figure should include the header Options field.
(2) Section 3.5 should be renamed "Op-length" and should focus on Op-length
(3) The bulk of the current 3.5 should be moved to a new section 3.8 "TRILL Header Options"
These changes would ensure that the figure 3.1 and subsequent list are parallel with
the remainder of section 3.

Non-stylistic quiblle with section 3: When the data link layer is IEEE [802.3], are there any
constraints on Op-length to ensure that the 64 alignment is maintained?
(Found the answer in section 4, but wonder if it should be mentioned earlier!)

Section 3.7.3, fourth bullet, first sentence:

Sorry to nitpick, but should we explicitly state that when the most significant bit is set to 1,
this indicates the nickname value was configured?

Section 4.1.1, first paragraph after Figure 4.2

Another Nit, but if RBridges are permitted to support a subset of the VLAN IDs, couldn't
we have a situation where two implementations supported disjoint ranges and were not
interoperable?  Or a I misreading that text?

Section 4.1.3, second paragraph first sentence.

Shouldn't this sentence state that TRILL framesforwarded by a transit RBridge use the
priority present in the Outer.VLAN tag as received?

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection