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

[Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>]

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,
Meral

---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com