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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, ignore below, hit send by mistake....

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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