[trill] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietf.org
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDA3126D05; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:32:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, trill-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151803553493.4763.7112212749920947387.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:32:14 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/8bAL1ysnQUZYcDzhEeZu5xgl5Nk>
Subject: [trill] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 20:32:15 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I agree with Mirja about the status of L4S, but would go even farther - L4S is
only one of the ECN experiments that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8311/
was intended to accommodate, so you might want to capture that in the appendix
(basically saying "L4S is one example of the ways TRILL ECN handling may
evolve", or something like that).


  If an RBridge supports ECN, for the two cases of an IP and a non-IPR
   inner packet, the egress behavior is as follows:

really "non-IPR"? I'm guessing it should be "non-IP".