Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Vendor-Specific RBridge Channel Protocol
RFC 8381

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00)
No email
send info
Thanks for answering my DISCUSS question.

I agree with the Gen-ART reviewer that the text in the Acknowledgements section is not appropriate. See RFC 7322.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00)
No email
send info
Could you please expand the text in the security considerations section as to why security properties (integrity, authentication, and encryption since they are not part of RBridge Channel messages except when explicitly added on in the extension draft) were not built in?  I'm assuming it is the limited scope of use for the protocol.  I am glad that options exist to add it in, but wish the text were a bit more encouraging so that would actually happen.  Vendors need to be motivated to provide these options for customers who may want to use them, without that motivation, the features won't be provided.

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Record

Comment (2018-03-07 for -00)
No email
send info
Apologies, I ran out of time for this one.