Re: [trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: (with COMMENT)

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Oh.

OK, Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Sorry, this is just the result of bad tooling combined with lack of coffee.
> When you change a Discuss to a No Objection it keeps the comments. I agree
> the current text is fine.
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Thanks for clearing your DISCUSS. See responses below to your
>> remaining COMMENTs.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>> > draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: No Objection
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > COMMENT:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > S 2.
>> >
>> >    plane on the edge RBridges, it should be possible to completely
>> >    suppress flooding of ARP/ND messages in a TRILL Campus, When all end-
>> >    station MAC addresses are similarly known, it should be possible to
>> >    suppress unknown unicast flooding by dropping any unknown unicast
>> >    received at an edge RBridge.
>> >
>> > Are these "should be possibles" normative? Descriptive?
>>
>> The following sentence was added earlier in Section 2 to make it clear
>> that these were not normative:
>>    "This section is a general discussion of this
>>    problem and is not intended to be normative."
>>
>> > S 4.
>> > This is a sequence of steps, so it would be nice to preface them with
>> > a list of the steps. It's also odd to have SEND considerations right
>> > in the middle here.
>> >
>> > 4.3 Get Sender's IP/MAC Mapping Information for Non-zero IP
>> > Please explain what a non-zero IP is and why it's relevant.
>> > This graf also needs an introductory sentence or something before
>> > the bullets.
>>
>> Section 4.3 has been re-named. "non-zero" no longer occurs anywhere in
>> this document. An introductory paragraph was added before the bullets.
>>
>> > S 4.4.
>> >    It is not essential that all RBridges use the same strategy for which
>> >    option to select for a particular ARP/ND query. It is up to the
>> >    implementation.
>> >
>> > This seems inconsistent with the MUST in arm (b) below, because I
>> > can just take some other arm. It's also kind of surprising to be this
>> > non-prescriptive.
>>
>> This is not actually inconsistent. The paragraph at the beginning of
>> Section 4.4 explains that which lettered "arm" you take is fixed by
>> the situation; it is an implementation choice which numbered sub-arm
>> to take under each lettered arm.
>>
>> > S 8.
>> >    some other location (MAC/VM Mobility) and gets connected to egde-
>> >
>> > Nit: edge is mispelled.
>>
>> As far as I can see, the misspelling of edge has been fixed in -09.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> ===============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>  [e-mail]
>
>