Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt
James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> Fri, 28 May 2010 11:40 UTC
Return-Path: <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id E08E83A68C1 for <pppext@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 28 May 2010 04:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XCsaBEz+mg8L for
<pppext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 04:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carlson.workingcode.com
(carlsonj-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1059F3A68C7 for <pppext@ietf.org>;
Fri, 28 May 2010 04:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.150.68.97] (carlson [75.150.68.97]) (authenticated bits=0)
by carlson.workingcode.com (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o4SBe6Vv016607
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 28 May 2010 07:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BFFAB96.6080606@workingcode.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:40:06 -0400
From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100214 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <20100527164502.B487E3A6AFA@core3.amsl.com>
<AANLkTikjeRk-3f7NCs6UoqRzNJRGPMvvk2TngTM6fthG@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikjeRk-3f7NCs6UoqRzNJRGPMvvk2TngTM6fthG@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC-x.dcc-servers-Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: pppext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>,
<mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:40:22 -0000
On 05/27/10 23:45, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi, > > Although I am not a PPP expert, I think this draft looks pretty good. > Now that TRILL has been approved as a Proposed Standard, I think this > draft should be advanced. > > However, I do have a question on one sentence: > In Section 3 on Page 4, numbered item 2, the following sentence occurs: > If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to > pass unencapsulated frames nor to any TRILL-ignorant peer to be > concerned about. > > I assume that most of the end of this sentence shouldn't be there... I think there's just an extra word in the sentence (s/nor to/nor/). It reads better as: If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to pass unencapsulated frames, as the link can have no TRILL- ignorant peer to be concerned about. The point of sending unencapsulated is to make sure that TRILL-ignorant nodes are able to see the traffic. But, since this is point-to-point, we can be certain that "everyone" (i.e., the one guy we're sending to) knows TRILL. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
- [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-proto… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-p… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-p… James Carlson
- Re: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-p… Donald Eastlake