Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)

<> Wed, 07 March 2018 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA09124BE8; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.208
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7pv4zdIWb9A; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2414124D6C; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 6C928D913677F41803A8; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:55:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 560847D9A895AFBBF093; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:55:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id w275tCMj017978; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:55:12 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (xgxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid71; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:55:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 13:55:14 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95a9f7ec2ffffffff9f5-0a775
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: w275tCMj017978
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 05:55:40 -0000

Hi,Alissa Cooper

Thanks for your review and comments. 

The new version(version 10)  has updated to fix your comments.

The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text  has been changed to the following:

The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits.

 |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte)
 | Length | (1 byte)
 |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes)
 | MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
 | ................. |
 | MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV

 o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit
 FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-
 TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all
 subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits
 is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no
 VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero.





发件人:AlissaCooper <>
收件人:The IESG <>
抄送人 <> <> <> <>
日 期 :2018年03月07日 04:45
主 题 :Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART

All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is.
Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called out
in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it would
be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1.

Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected
lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the number
of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the text
per field.


Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments.