Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01

Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I expect the draft to be revised. Will you take care of that, Donald?

Jari

On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> Hi Donald,
> 
> On 20/01/2014 16:45, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Hi Alexey,
>> 
>> Thanks for your review, see below:
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov
>> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
>>> comments you may receive.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01
>>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
>>> Review Date: 2014-01-20
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-22
>>> IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
>>> 
>>> Major issues: None
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:
>>> 
>>> o  Label: This carries the fine-grained label identifier for all
>>>       subsequent MAC addresses in this sub-TLV, or the value zero if no
>>>       label is specified.
>>> 
>>> I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly
>>> "fine-grained label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is
>>> defined later in the document, can you please add a forward
>>> reference. If it is defined in another document, can you please add
>>> a reference to that.
>> Fine grained labels are specified in draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-07,
>> which is an approved standard track draft in the RFC Editor's
>> queue. Adding a reference to it here would be good.
> Sounds great. Thanks.
>>> In Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1:
>>> 
>>> What are the requirements on backward compatibility between different
>>> versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid for
>>> version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them in the
>>> document.
>> There are no explicit requirements. Incremental changes and
>> improvements are generally handed with capability bits or the
>> presence/absence of data strucutres in control messages. A version
>> change would probably indicate a pretty major modification but, since
>> these version numbers are within IS-IS TLVs, I would say that
>> implicitly the intent is to stay with the IS-IS PDU structure for the
>> control plane.
> I think the document should state that. Also, if you want any messages to be unchanged (fully or partially) irrespectively of version numbers, you should state that too.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art