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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

A -11 version of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes has been uploaded
with the intent of resolving your discuss. Please look at it and see
if you can clear.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Fangwei,
>>
>> As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before
>> reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in
>> 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows
>> two
>> bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2
>> bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two
>> inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed
>> to be.
>
> I agree that the figure is a little confusing. I suggest the following:
>
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |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)        |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
>
>> Alissa
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Fangwei.
>>
>> 原始邮件
>> 发件人：AlissaCooper <[e-mail]>
>> 收件人：The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> 抄送人：[e-mail]
>> <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>> <[e-mail]>[e-mail] <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>> <[e-mail]>
>> 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART
>> reviewer:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments.
>>
>>
>>
>