Re: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14

Donald Eastlake <> Wed, 21 February 2018 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1DD120227; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7eNq_bdn1oF1; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFFD1200F1; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o13so417612ito.2; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NaKOXzIgX5pihgw83WSpjwd22GaeuapvYer2hrXHw2s=; b=I3CjlVY+98wnsxuGLKNb8MbeoaxQL1JG0PoGkPsNW2hRWbviCV+P1nV1w3oi2+3YzX WWzZ7JJbO0mUI6A0ZrvCzZ8NK14C73FIHi8/AoVGHA3COfy7Ii8QFjZEcxpzcNkO1EC5 3lurZXqYNzyf5C94QFr3c4j8urg+GtgepolW5HIhh+qA3M5T5TuO6rckSGMKaun0OYdn PLEKfoZXCBpk2P5Spm0bPp/mJQeXPxH949VEzb+eMla+yWWmFQNb6shLIgArMqqUFqO1 EirMomgzaJ9jGLQ3yCb/F619Pg/hMWnTrgcDc4Q7Aope38HRd3YOnyddWSOXGHCzZPak fLfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NaKOXzIgX5pihgw83WSpjwd22GaeuapvYer2hrXHw2s=; b=bPC6YFArq5Hks/gfwsul3lIPyavt4xmzSYmlkAMxe39acdNNuq1Yp4O1s6MMAoV3jp UwhjmuS7v3eY1COK0jVsdV5MITnFybpHvb7WZSGmWtc3TiEiIH/F/FQkmIgjVwY+sZZa cXy3PdhrkApC9DWNYnMBKYp4Jj+IBM5Shk2FPRAg+21khmXV0i5wZoSoe2hWI5adyHu0 NPsNKfFV3U5Pj+zEWmK/S7mCDkflXbaRN1ElFt4GGQvhi6729sGlQDT87GupMOIPJvaE gzJGqSnEDL9nCEq6s8MAfedN2jUDXiQ8JSrFT8RfEUUouHVKNX5vUVjHvF5AlgRJ9aPb qVUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBea3YYOm+wIYVKcSja8iAcfx/JCTgJXFKhqtWsDZspauJmo3Mm fTroTcRsni4MUX+AEOtOO0BISI74o3JyoaEMmLQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELunPmAwi8L6OVAy1uGjBN4w97AK9Ow1A4d5rWm14qOIahnu9EplqP+g6hAmiHlfNPOh8oDb2dq40AZeUpQ5tPs=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 134mr1215703ity.94.1519176625437; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:30:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:30:10 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Alia Atlas <>
Cc: trill IETF mailing list <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11438a541c41260565aedfd6"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14
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, 21 Feb 2018 01:30:28 -0000

Hi Alia,

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Alia Atlas <> wrote:

> As is traditional, I have done my AD review of
> draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14. First I would like to thank the authors -
> Donald, Margaret, Mingui, and Dacheng, as well as the reviewers for their
> work on this document.
> I did find one minor issue (below) and would recommend a spell-checker to
> catch several minor typos.  I will send this to IETF Last Call and place it
> on the IESG telechat on March 8.
> Minor:
> 1) In Sec 5.2: " An adjacency can be formed between two TRILL over IP
> transport ports if the intersection of the sets of encapsulation methods
> they support is not null. If that intersection is null, then no adjacency
> is formed."
> Given that Sec 5.0 says that the native encapsulation MUST be supported,
> how can the set be null?  Is this the set of encapsulation methods other
> than the native encapsulation?  Please clarify.

Unless the port is configured to use some other encapsulation X for all
types of traffic, then a port has to "support" UDP for the low bandwidth of
Hellos and other adjacency establishment PDUs. This is different from
advertising support for UDP which means a willingness to use it for data
traffic and LSPs. This needs to be clarified. Maybe "limited support"
versus "full support".

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

> Regards,
> Alia