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

Hi Jari,

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 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?

I have a version ready to post with some minor editorial fixes and the
like and would be happy to include the missing reference to
draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling; however, I would prefer not to include
the somewhat hand-waving text I wrote about TRILL protocol version
number and I am not sure how long it would take to come up with a good
statement on that...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> 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
>