Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you for your review. Most
of your points should be addressed as you recommend.

I've just got a comment/question regarding your first major issue.

Note that STP operationally is not impacted with the use of a RG. Section 2
says: “The link between the peering PEs is not visible to the bridge
domains of the STP network. In this way, the STP will always break a
possible loop within the multi-homed STP network by breaking the whole
network into separate islands so that each is attached to one PE.” Other
than that, operation is identical to the way VPLS works now, including the
use of split-horizon to perform loop-breaking through the core. and that's
also discussed in section 2.

Does this satisfy your first comment?

Thanks,
Andy

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2015-09-25
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-09-23
> IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-01
>
> Summary: Ready with issues
> --------
>
> Comments:
> ---------
>
> The author responded helpfully to the following Last Call comments
> but a new version is needed to fix them.
>
> It's impossible for a reviewer who is not expert in the details
> of 802.1Q to check many details in this draft, so I didn't.
>
> Major Issues:
> -------------
>
> The draft does not properly explain the theory of operation.
> The messages are defined but it is not explained when a spanning
> tree is formed. Section 4 does not help with this. I think it
> should be explained at the end of the Use Case section.
>
> The main normative reference appears to be IEEE 802.1Q-2005. The current
> standard is IEEE 802.1Q-2014, which appears to be very different.
> I think this should be discussed in the text to avoid confusion.
>
> > 3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV
> ...
> > When the total size of the TLVs to be transmitted
> > exceeds the maximal size of a fragment, these TLVs SHOULD be divided
> > into multiple sets, delimited by multiple pairs of STP
> > Synchronization Data TLVs, and filled into multiple fragments.
>
> There needs to be discussion of what happens if a fragment
> is lost.
>
> Minor Issues:
> -------------
>
> > 3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause sub-TLV
> ...
> >       - Disconnect Cause String
> >
> >        Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect,
> >        to be used for operational purposes.
>
> Should it be specified whether this is ASCII, UTF-8,...?
>
> Nits:
> -----
>
> Please expand Spanning Tree Protocol in the main title.
>
> Abbreviation PE used but not defined. Also, "provider edge" means an edge,
> which is an abstract concept, not a device. If the draft is discussing
> specific devices, it should say "PE device" or "PE router" or "PE switch".
>
> Abbreviation AC used but not defined.
>
> Abbreviation CE used but not defined.
>
>