Subject: [trill] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-trill-cmt-04
From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:35:50 -0500
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>

Hi,

Here is the result of my review of draft-ietf-trill-cmt-04. Consider
all these point to just be my opinion; I'm happy to hear
counter-arguments.

- There are apparently two lines that are too long. One is in Section
5.4.1 where there is an "-OR-" which looks OK but is actually at the
far end of a line so long that it wraps around. I think the other one
was in the IANA Considerations, which was 2 characters over the limit
for a draft, but I suggest a replacement IANA Considerations Section
below in any case.

- The Abstract should note that the document updates RFC 6325.

- There are a few places where Fine Grained Labels should be mentioned
as well as VLANs and cases where "Data Label" or the like should be
used to include both. (I'll send details on this and other suggestions
directly to the document authors.)

- The Introduction should clearly state how RFC 6325 is updated by
adding something like: "This document updates [RFC6325] by changing
how distribution trees are constructed when tree affinity
advertisements are present."

- The Acronym section should include AF, FGL, and a couple other
entries. When RFC 7379 went through the IESG, we ended up changing
"Classic Ethernet" to "Customer Ethernet" so we might as well do that
now.

- Affinity sub-TLV can appear in MT Capability TLVs as well as Router
Capability TLVs.

- Since the link aggregation standard has been revised to include
Distributed Resilient Network Interconnect, mention that in addition
to MC-LAG and, for parallelism with RFC 7379, use the phrase Local
Active-Active Link Protocol.

- Make the IANA Considerations section a bit more precise by replacing
it with the following:
   "This document requires no IANA actions because the "Affinity
Supported" capability bit and Affinity sub-TLV have been specified and
allocated in [RFC7176]."

References:

- References should be updated for drafts that have been published as
RFCs and for the recently published update to 802.1AX.

- There is one reference to [RFC5410] that should be [RFC5310] I think.

- The references mentioned in the text and those in the References
sections should be brought into alignment.

Minor suggestion:

- On title page, make intended status "Proposed Standard". The PROTO
template implies that is more desirable than the less specific
"Standards Track".

Thanks,
Donald (Document Shepherd)
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]