Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Meral,

Thanks for your review. See below:

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Meral Shirazipour
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see
> the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive.
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date: June-18-2012
> IETF LC End Date: June-20-2012
> IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012
>
>
> Summary:
> The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, however I
> have a few comments.
>
>
>
> Minor issues:
>
> TRILL-PORT-VER sub-TLV should be "PORT-TRILL-VER" sub-TLV.(there are a few
> occurrences)



>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 2, spell out first occurrence LSP
>
>
>
> - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 5, "overload bit on" ----> "overload bit set"
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 6], Section 2.1, line 5, add a comma "," after
> "traffic engineered frames"
>
>
>
> - Typo:[Page 6], last word, "contain" --missing s--> "contains"
>
>
>
> - Suggestion: [Page 7], Section 2.2, line 2, spell out first occurrence of
> "Reverse Path Forwarding Check" and then use "RPFC" in the rest of the
> document.
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, line 5, sentence starting with
> "RB2 MUST advertise ...": we could omit the second occurrence of "it might
> use" in that sentence.
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, 3rd line from last, "end
> stations connected to RB": "a RB" or "RBs"?
>
>
>
> - Typo: [Page 11], Section 3.1,"( j, k)" --remove extra space--> "(j, k)"
>
>
>
> - Suggestion: [Page 11], Section 3.2, "already in flight" ----> "already in
> transmission"
>
>
>
> - Typo [Page 12]:"many multi-destination frame"--missing s--> "many
> multi-destination frames"
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 13], Point 4. , Sentence 2: suggested clarification:
>
> "It does so by checking LSPs it receives and updating its link state
> database for any of its nicknames held with higher priority by another TRILL
> Switch that is IS-IS reachable."
>
>
>
> - Typo [Page 14]:"unicast Channel message"--missing s-->"unicast Channel
> messages"
>
>
>
> - Typo [Page 16]: Section 5.2,"Routeing" ----> "Routing"
>
>
>
> - Suggestion:[Page 16],last sentence, suggestion: "This safety margin is
> called "Margin" below."
>
>
>
> - Typo [Page 18]:"a specified in [RFC6325]"--missing s-->"as specified in
> [RFC6325]"
>
>
>
> - Suggestion: [Page 19], spell out first occurrence of EISS
>
>
>
> - Suggestion:[Page 21], Point 1, not clear what the new text becomes.
> Suggestion: refer to last paragraph of section 3.1 instead of paragraph
> before 3.2, and propose the new sentence.
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 2, it is not clear what the change is to
> section 3.2 of RFC6327.
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 3, it would be clearer to say "bullet A9 is
> added" (if this is an event like the rest of the bullets in section 3.3 of
> RFC6327)
>
>
>
> - Clarification:[Page 22], section 10.1,"disagreement over the Designated
> VLAN or the like". Suggestion: replace the term "or the like" with other
> examples or remove the term.
>
>
>
> -Typo: [Page 22], section 10.1, "each others frames"---->"each other's
> frames"
>
>
>
> -Typo: [Page 24], "DRB SHOULD NOT appointed"---->"DRB SHOULD NOT appoint",
> "an VLAN"---->"a VLAN", "RBridged"---->"RBridge"
>
>
>
> -Clarification:[Page 25], Section 11, Point 1, "The previously reserved",
> reference to document.
>
>
>
> - Clarification: [page 19/page 27], Informative References, reference [802],
> to verify which standard we want to refer to for Canonical Format Indicator:
>
> If it is "IEEE Std 802-2001: IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
> Networks: Overview and Architecture", then the date should be 7 February
> 2001."
>
> However this specific document does not define CIF. You may want to refer to
> 802.1Q-2005.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> Thanks,
> Meral
>
>
> ---
> Meral Shirazipour
> Ericsson
> Research
> www.ericsson.com