Re: [trill] My thoughts/corrections ->draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-00.doc;

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gayle,

Happy New Year!

Thanks for these comments.  I think I pretty much agree with all of them
and will revise the draft.

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

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:10 PM, gayle noble <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My thoughts/corrections ->draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-00.doc;
>
> Acronyms used but not defined::
>
> APPsub-TLV Application sub-Type-Length-Values
>
> FS-CSNP    Flooding Scoped
> *Complete Sequence Number Packet *
> FS-PSNP     Flooding Scoped
> *Partial Sequence Number Packet *
> MTU            Maximum Transmission Unit
>
> PDU             Protocol Data Unit
>
> VLAN           Virtual Local-Area Network
> =====================
> corrections:
> 1.   Page 8 section 2.1 fourth paragraph point A first sentence
> ["E-L!CS" should be "E-L1CS"]
> (as written)
>   (A) The inclusion of one or more Appointed Forwarders sub-TLVs
>       [RFC7176], Appointment Bitmap APPsub-TLVs (Section 10.2), or
>       Appointment List APPsub-TLVs (Section 10.3) in E-L!CS LSPs it
>       sends on a link.
> (should be)
>   (A) The inclusion of one or more Appointed Forwarders sub-TLVs
>       [RFC7176], Appointment Bitmap APPsub-TLVs (Section 10.2), or
>       Appointment List APPsub-TLVs (Section 10.3) in E-L1CS LSPs it
>       sends on a link.
> --------------------
>
> 2.   page 18   first paragraph
> ["simultaneously" spelt wrong]
> These optimizations are a bit heuristic in that with some unlikely
> multiple changes in a bridged LAN that occur simultnaeously [should be
> simultaneously] or nearly so the optimizations make transient looping
> more likely.
> ------------------------------------------
>
> 3.   page 19 second paragraph second sentence
> ["RBridge" is singular "are" is plural so should probably be "is" or
> "RBridges"]
> (as written)
> If an RBridge port sees a change in root Bridge ID from Root1 to Root2, it
> is safe to terminate root bridge inhibition on that port as soon as Hellos
> have been received on the port from all RBridges that can see Root1 or
> Root2 except any such RBridge that are no longer reachable.
> (probably should be)
> If an RBridge port sees a change in root Bridge ID from Root1 to Root2, it
> is safe to terminate root bridge inhibition on that port as soon as Hellos
> have been received on the port from all RBridges that can see Root1 or
> Root2 except any such RBridge that is no longer reachable.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 4.   Page 21 Third paragraph first sentence
> ["providing" should probably be "provided" based on the rest of the
> sentence ]
> (as written)
>  Two different encodings are providing above to optimize the listing of
> VLANs.
> (should be)
>  Two different encodings are provided above to optimize the listing of
> VLANs.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.   Page 21 last paragraph first sentence
> ["AF bit" is singular "are" is plural sentence is weird :)]
> (as written)
> If the above mechanisms are used on a link, then each RBridge on the link
> MUST send Hellos in one or more VLANs with such VLANs Appointed sub-TLV(s)
> and/or self-appointment Appointed Forwarders sub-TLV(s), and the "AF" bit
> are appropriately set such that no VLAN inhibition timer will improperly
> expire unless three or more Hellos are lost.
> (should probably be)
> If the above mechanisms are used on a link, then each RBridge on the link
> MUST send Hellos in one or more VLANs with such VLANs Appointed sub-TLV(s)
> and/or self-appointment Appointed Forwarders sub-TLV(s), and the "AF" bit
> is appropriately set such that no VLAN inhibition timer will improperly
> expire unless three or more Hellos are lost.
> (or re-write sentence)
>     If the above mechanisms are used on a link, then each RBridge on the
> link MUST send Hellos in one or more VLANs such that no VLAN inhibition
> timer will improperly expire unless three or more Hellos are lost.
> Appropriately setting the "AF" bit in such Hellos and including VLANs
> Appointed sub-TLV(s) and/or self-appointment Appointed Forwarders
> sub-TLV(s) in such Hellos accomplishes this.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6.   page 24 section 6.3 second paragraph first sentence
> ["P! " should be "P1"]
> (as written)
> If a failure of port P1 on RBridge RB2 is detected by RB2, then the
> Port-Shutdown message announcing this is sequentially unicast through the
> rest of the TRILL campus to all RBridges with which P! had an adjacency
> and which are advertising support for the Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel
> protocol.
> (should be)
> If a failure of port P1 on RBridge RB2 is detected by RB2, then the
> Port-Shutdown message announcing this is sequentially unicast through the
> rest of the TRILL campus to all RBridges with which P1 had an adjacency
> and which are advertising support for the Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel
> protocol.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 7.   page 25  second point
> ["eligiable." should be "eligible"]
> (as written)
>      - If an outer VLAN tag is present, it specified the designated VLAN
> for the link, SHOULD specify priority 7, and SHOULD NOT specify drop
> eligiable.
> (should be)
>      - If an outer VLAN tag is present, it specified the designated VLAN
> for the link, SHOULD specify priority 7, and SHOULD NOT specify drop
> eligible.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> 8.   page 25 section 6.5
> ["security" would read smoother as "secured"]
> (as written)
>   Port-Shutdown messages can be security through use of the Channel
>   Tunnel security features [ChannelTunnel].
> (Ids write)
>   Port-Shutdown messages can be secured through use of the Channel
>   Tunnel security features [ChannelTunnel].
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 9.   page 27 last paragraph first sentence
> ["of" should be "on"]
> (as written)
> Depending of how the network is being managed, a transient inconsistency
> may not be a problem.
> (should be)
> Depending on how the network is being managed, a transient inconsistency
> may not be a problem.
> ---------------------------------------------
> 10. Page 32 last paragraph before 10.4 - only sentence in that paragraph
>
> ["originaed" should be "originated" ]
> (as written)
> This APPsub-TLV, when originaed by the DRB, appoints the TRILL switch
> with Appointee Nickname to be the Appointed Forwarder for the VLAN IDs
> listed.
> (should be)
> This APPsub-TLV, when originated by the DRB, appoints the TRILL switch
> with Appointee Nickname to be the Appointed Forwarder for the VLAN IDs
> listed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 11. Page 40 last paragraph  formatting weird
> [formatting weird ]
> (as formatted)
>   Changes to [RFC7177] are as follows:
>    As provided in Section 6, TRILL switches SHOULD treat the
>         reception of a Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel message from RB1
>         listing port P1 as if it were an event A3 as specified in
>         [RFC7177] resulting in transition of any adjacency to P1 to the
>        Detect state.
> (should be - in my opinion :)
>   Changes to [RFC7177] are as follows:
> As provided in Section 6, TRILL switches SHOULD treat the reception of a
> Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel message from RB1 listing port P1 as if it
> were an event A3 as specified in RFC7177] resulting in transition of any
> adjacency to P1 to the Detect state.
> ------------------------------------------------
> 12. Page 41 first paragraph
> ["P!" should be "P1" - ]
> (as written)
> Assume that RBridges RB1 and RB2 have ports P! and P2, respectively, that
> are both on link L1 and that RBridges RB3 and RB4 have ports P3 and P4,
> respectively, that are both on Link L2.
> (should be)
> Assume that RBridges RB1 and RB2 have ports P1 and P2, respectively, that
> are both on link L1 and that RBridges RB3 and RB4 have ports P3 and P4,
> respectively, that are both on Link L2.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> 13. page 41 second paragraph after the drawing eighth sentence
> ["an other" should probably be "any other"]
> (as written)
> The packet will loop indefinitely, because in native form on L1 and L2 it
> has no TRILL hop count, and an indefinitely large number of copies will be
> delivered to ES1 and an other end station so situated.
> (should probably be)
> The packet will loop indefinitely, because in native form on L1 and L2 it
> has no TRILL hop count, and an indefinitely large number of copies will be
> delivered to ES1 and any other end station so situated.
> ==============================
> Confusion::
> 1.   page 25
> [ I am totally lost trying to make sense out of "sends the same messages
> RBridge port on the link advertises support of the Port-Shutdown" What??
> Should it be ---- sends the same messages "to the" RBridge port on the link
> "that" advertises support of the Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel protocol??
> If not what does this mean??? ]
> (as wriiten)
>  If a port shutdown is planned within one second, then the TRILL switch
> ceases to send Hellos out the port being shut down and either
>
>  (1) sends the same messages RBridge port on the link advertises
>   support of the Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel protocol, broadcasts the
>   Port-Shutdown message announcing this through the port as follows:
> (I think it should be more like)
>  If a port shutdown is planned within one second, then the TRILL switch
> ceases to send Hellos out the port being shut down and either
> (1) sends Port-Shutdown messages to RBridge ports on the link advertising
> support of the Port-Shutdown RBridge Channel protocol, or (2) broadcasts
> the Port-Shutdown message announcing this through the port as follows:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> GOOFY Thoughts >*grin*<
> page 14
> If such mapping within a link was allowed and occurred on two or more
> links so that there was a cycle of VLAN mappings, a multi-destination frame
> would loop forever. "These are called Vampire frames" or "Such a frame
> would be immortal." . For a specific example, see Appendix C.
>
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>
>