[trill] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel-06

Will LIU <liushucheng@huawei.com> Fri, 23 June 2017 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <liushucheng@huawei.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 F0F731274D0; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 03:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Will LIU <liushucheng@huawei.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149821210292.17338.9570586170242114506@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 03:01:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/8wB2WTwmab7MRnZDNfRHxR4apQA>
Subject: [trill] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel-06
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: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:01:43 -0000

Reviewer: Will LIU
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel-06 as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of
improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not
addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. 
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

"This informational document enumerates and examines alternatives based on a
number of factors including backward compatibility, simplicity, and scalability
and makes recommendations in some cases.""

The document was well written, and I didn't find any nit in it. The RFC editor
might modify and place the copyright part in the usual position.

My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication.