Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection - WG LC (2nd call) - 8/4 to 8/18

gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676861B31DA for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J5uiZlVtjVJ8 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skyhighway.com (skyhighway.com [63.249.82.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB38F1B31BF for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Firefly.skyhighway.com (dsl-63-249-88-160.static.cruzio.com [63.249.88.160]) by skyhighway.com with ESMTP id t75GpIAK079557 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <201508051651.t75GpIAK079557@skyhighway.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:51:13 -0700
To: <trill@ietf.org>
From: gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
In-Reply-To: <01da01d0ceb5$ae763810$0b62a830$@ndzh.com>
References: <01da01d0ceb5$ae763810$0b62a830$@ndzh.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1328042798==.ALT"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/SGZLkG17BqCXKFI_ScI6x2t3eLs>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection - WG LC (2nd call) - 8/4 to 8/18
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 16:51:29 -0000

I support this draft advancing.
I do have the following suggestions

acronyms used but not defined - I'd like to see them defined in the document
APPsub-TLV - Application sub-TLV
E-L1FS           - Extended Level 1 Scope
FS-LSP         - Flooding Scoped Label Switched Paths
RPF               - Reverse Path Forward
Sub-TLV         - Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values

corrections:
1.   page 4 - first paragraph - forth sentence
["multi-destiantion" should be spelt "multi-destination"]
(as written)
Every RBridge can specify the trees it will use for multi-destiantion 
TRILL data packets it originated in the Trees Used Identifiers 
(TREE-USE-IDs) sub-TLV and the VLANs or fine grained labels (FGLs 
[RFC7172]) it is interested in are specified in Interested VLANs 
and/or Interested Labels sub-TLVs [RFC7176].
(should be)
Every RBridge can specify the trees it will use for multi-destination 
TRILL data packets it originated in the Trees Used Identifiers 
(TREE-USE-IDs) sub-TLV and the VLANs or fine grained labels (FGLs 
[RFC7172]) it is interested in are specified in Interested VLANs 
and/or Interested Labels sub-TLVs [RFC7176].

2.   page 4 second paragraph first sentence
[Comma missing after "provided"]
(as written)
Defaults are provided but it is implementation dependent how many 
trees to calculate, where the tree roots are located, and which 
tree(s) are to be used by an ingress RBridge.
(I think it should be)
Defaults are provided, but it is implementation dependent how many 
trees to calculate, where the tree roots are located, and which 
tree(s) are to be used by an ingress RBridge.

3.   page 5 fourth paragraph first sentence
["to an index to a list of ports" reads weird. Probably should be "to 
an index of a list of ports"
(as written)
A multicast forwarding table at an RBridge is normally used to map 
the key of (distribution tree nickname + VLAN) to an index to a list 
of ports for multicast packet replication.
(probably should be)
A multicast forwarding table at an RBridge is normally used to map 
the key of (distribution tree nickname + VLAN) to an index of a list 
of ports for multicast packet replication.

4.   page 8 section 3.1 second paragraph - second sentence
["as example" should be "as an example"]
(as written)
Take Figure 1 as example, two trees rooted at RB1 and RB2 respectively.
(should be)
Take Figure 1 as an example, two trees rooted at RB1 and RB2 respectively.

5.   page 12 section 3.3  first paragraph - first sentence
[I am totally confused by use of the word "usual" in "defined in 
[RFC7176] as usual in its E-L1FS FS-LSP". Should "usual" be "used"??]
(as written)
The highest priority tree root RBridge MUST include all the necessary 
tree related sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7176] as usual in its E-L1FS 
FS-LSP and MAY include the Tree and VLANs Sub-TLV (TREE-VLANs) and/or 
Tree and FGLs Sub-TLV (TREE-FGLs) in its E-L1FS FS-LSP [rfc7180bis].
(probably should be??)
The highest priority tree root RBridge MUST include all the necessary 
tree related sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7176] as used in its E-L1FS 
FS-LSP and MAY include the Tree and VLANs Sub-TLV (TREE-VLANs) and/or 
Tree and FGLs Sub-TLV (TREE-FGLs) in its E-L1FS FS-LSP [rfc7180bis].

6.   page 12 section 3.3 second paragraph - second sentence
["choose" should be "chooses"]
(as written)
If there were multiple tree nicknames announced in TREE-VLANs Sub-TLV 
for a VLAN x, ingress RBridge choose one of them if it supports this feature.
(should be)
If there were multiple tree nicknames announced in TREE-VLANs Sub-TLV 
for a VLAN x, ingress RBridge chooses one of them if it supports this feature.

7.   page 16 #6 IANA considerations - first paragraph - first sentence
["assigne" should be "assign" :)]
(as written)
IANA is requested to assigne five new TRILL APPsub-TLV type codes 
from the range less than 255 as specified in Section 3 and update the 
TRILL Parameters registry as shown below.
(should be)
IANA is requested to assign five new TRILL APPsub-TLV type codes from 
the range less than 255 as specified in Section 3 and update the 
TRILL Parameters registry as shown below.

suggestions:
1.   page 4 section: 1.1. Background Description - first paragraph 
sixth sentence
[two things: (one) The sentence is really long and I think it could 
be broken into two sentences. (two) "used for reverse path forwarding 
check" reads really weird - should be either "used for the reverse 
path forward check" or "used for checking reverse path forwarding"]
(as written)
Trees Used Identifiers sub-TLVs are used to build the RPF Check table 
that is used for reverse path forwarding check; Interested VLANs and 
Interested Labels sub-TLVs are used for distribution tree pruning and 
the multi-destination forwarding table with pruning info is built 
based on that.

(I'd like it better)
Trees Used Identifiers sub-TLVs are used to build the RPF Check table 
that is used for checking reverse path forwarding. Interested VLANs 
and Interested Labels sub-TLVs are used for distribution tree pruning 
and the multi-destination forwarding table with pruning info is built 
based on that.


gayle