Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency
RFC 6327

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-28)
No email
send info
1) expand acronyms on first use
2) multiple sections 1.2
3) why does acknowledgements precede the table of contents? normally this is in the main body of the document.
4) in 2.2, terms that have specific meanings are being redefined in a way that I think could be confusing. "ingressing" and "egressing" are used to describe adding/removing TRILL-headers. It would seem more appropriate to use terms like "Trilling" and de-TRILLing" to describe this functionality.
5) in section 2.2, "tamed" is highlighted by quotes because it is taking an existing word and reusing in a trill-specific manner. Should this be included in terminology.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-28)
No email
send info
The state machines are given as (event,state) => (new state) tuples. I'm kind of missing the action part, presumably there are events that cause an action to be taken. Why is not the (event,state) => (action, new state) model not used here?

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  Please consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by
  Pete McCann on 23-Apr-2011.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I went and looked at what's holding up publishing RFCtrill and it's this document.  If -adj is updating RFCtrill wouldn't it be better to roll this on in to the base as opposed to having RFC XXXX be updated by RFC XXXX+2?  I know it happens, but I'm just saying...

If two do get published, is there a plan to  later combine the two?

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info