Re: [trill] Consensus Call: draft-ietf-trill-oam-req

Donald Eastlake <> Tue, 30 October 2012 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1192421F86DC for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vCwcfD2lzziO for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EE021F8647 for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 9so8538573iec.31 for <>; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0qJz3O/B/SZiEW4aDpXKlPcZYJA4NxbabtadviCjDAg=; b=fRBCHj/T9DuaJEsBWKPZKFwgHRQGwhyH9rAjEoBA5IegvNx6unQM2r45KtGuBPDeRW ed+Q1W5DNaV3vfWg/0o58U3q6p0OfYa5zuJZ4TYcUFrNNktUviLtwV0gTOR0uSugEp0F KmCmLNMJrZkIEEmf6ZJuPEO3J85aZqZX9iMBfQ6l4GW3xoCb/Wnps4GFK4zgLPgNRU3J gYBbHfnBsah7OXBqNVr5AgfcVbs5oeJs85bUt7zpwTeZErf9Qmrxq4vfXhAZ0672y1m2 mTLVsQvsipyqoK2T+cSsqfJUKhl6BZ+f/yGiYXVYrNh7FaDKJqUZ6FRO17wICzFmp8Po yynw==
Received: by with SMTP id or7mr11354008igc.73.1351559367969; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:09:07 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Thomas Narten <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [trill] Consensus Call: draft-ietf-trill-oam-req
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:09:29 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for the review.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Narten <>
> Sorry to chime in late, but I did another careful review of this
> document.
> At a high-level, I think it's mostly ready to go. I did find a few
> things (below) that I think need addressing. While they could be
> handled during the IETF LC, it might be better to just respin the
> document first.

I don't see any problem is doing some editorial improvements. The
Shepherd review and PROTO statement have not yet been done and after
that the next stage is actually AD review...

> I also note that Don Eastlake had a number of comments that don't
> seem to have been picked up in the revised version. (I noted some of
> the same editorial issues.)
> The one concern I have is whether this document has gotten enough
> and the right kind of review. 4 of the 7 "support" (5 of 8 counting
> mine!) come from the main contributers of the document. I'd feel
> better if this document got more reviews from those who haven't been
> closely involved in the work.

An IETF Operations Directorate review of this draft has been
explicitly requested. The draft would no doubt have gotten one
eventually but this may cause it to occur at an earlier stage.

> Also, given our desire to coordinate with the IEEE 802.1 on OAM,
> shouldn't we act to get some reviews from that side before saying
> "we're done" and sending it to the IESG?

Earlier versions were reviewed by and I believe this draft was
provided early to the 802.1 participants who are working with the OAM
Design Team. In any case, this draft is intended to be the TRILL
requirements and should be generally independent of the technology
used -- for example independent of whether specific TRILL OAM
mechanisms more closely follow IEEE 802.1ag or MPLS OAM or the TRILL
native mechanisms that were being developed in the now expired draft or
other mechanisms.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA