Re: [trill] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm

Hi draft authors,
After reviewing this draft, I think it's a very important framework draft and organized well. I support it with several comments below:
1. Several typos:
1) header format of section 8, section 9.2 are not correct. Similar problem also exists other place in the draft;
2) Suggest to change the order between section 8 and section 9;
3) TRILL OAM Specific TLVs names in section 8.4.2 are not consistent with the following draft;
4) In section 9.2.1, "The TRILL OAM Version TLV" should be "The TRILL OAM Application Identifier TLV"?

2. In section 1, is reference to [TRLOAMFRM] ok because it's not a WG draft or RFC?

3. In section 12:
1) what's is the main goal of it? Detecting flow fault or path fault of multi-path (e.g. ECMP)? 
2) What's the reason MEP transmits 4 CCM messages per each flow?
3) The numbered CCM messages possibly arrive remote MEP out of order because the multi-path characteristics of TRILL;
4) Even if CCM messages can arrive remote MEP in order, the fault detecting scheme seems to be not correct totally and will give fault judgement. For example, when  MEP-B does not receive CCM messages of 3,4,5,6.

B.R.
Frank

> -----Original Message-----
> From: trill [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 2:31 AM
> To: trill@ietf.org
> Subject: [trill] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As announced at the TRILL WG meeting today, this starts a WG Last Call on
> draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm-02.txt running through March 24th.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald and Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill