Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Umair,

Looks good to me, thanks! Matthew?

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Mohammed Umair <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Matthew and Andy,
>
>
>
> New Version -05 is just posted, Could you look at this version which is
> intended to resolve your Comments.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Umair
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:21 PM
> *To:* Mohammed Umair
> *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kingston
> Smiler
>
> *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of
> draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02
>
>
>
> Umair,
>
>
>
> You added PBB being out of scope for this document to section 3.4, but it
> doesn’t say that anywhere else, such as in the introduction or the
> abstract. Is it really out of scope?
>
>
>
> The text in section 6 doesn’t scan, the first two sentences should be
> joined together by a comma rather than a period and starting a new
> paragraph. But it still doesn’t make sense to me, because the second part
> talks about what happens in the VPTS model if there’s a pseudowire failure,
> but the first part of the doesn’t say anything about a pseudowire failure
> in the VPLS model (which, as we noted, doesn’t present a problem if you’re
> running spanning tree or H-VPLS with PW redundancy in the VPLS).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mohammed Umair <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew and Andrew,
>
>
>
> Could you look at version -04 to see if this resolves your comments?
>
> My apologies for taking so long.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Umair
>
>
>
> *From:* trill [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G.
> Malis
> *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:40 PM
> *To:* Kingston Smiler
> *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of
> draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02
>
>
>
> Kingston,
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> <Kingston>
>
> Typically PBB-VPLS is used to avoid exposing the customer MAC in service
> provider network. In case of TRILL packet over MPLS, already the customer
> MAC is encapsulated inside the TRILL header. Having said that, do we really
> need to consider TRILL over PBB-VPLS.
>
> </Kingston>
>
>
>
> PBB (and by extension, PBB-VPLS) is not just used for C-MAC hiding, but
> also for provider infrastructure scaling, so I would think the answer is
> yes. Matthew, do you agree?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> .