[trill] Nits on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

I have a few nits from reading the document as part of preparing to send 
it to the IESG.
Would it make sense to fix these before we send it in?


Section 2 says:
    If Op-Length is zero there is no header extension present;
    else, this area follows immediately after the Ingress Rbridge
    Nickname field of the TRILL Header.

That is a bit confusing, since "area" isn't used earlier in the text.
Either the prior sentence should say "extensions area", or the above
should say "the extensions follows".

I think it would be useful to mention that these two are specified in
6325 (but without the 'S' being part of their names):
     0-3  Crit.: Critical summary bits.
          0 CHbHS: Critical Hop-by-Hop extension(s) are present.
          1 CItES: Critical Ingress-to-Egress extension(s) are present.

Typo in section 2.3.1: Should be "CHbHS"
       critical hop-by-hop extensions, MUST drop the frame. If the CHbH

And many more lines have missing 'S':
    CItES: If the CItE (Critical Ingress to Egress Summary) bit is a one,
       extensions area.  If the CItE bit is zero, no such extensions are
       present.  If either CHbH or CItE is non-zero, egress RBridges that
       If both CHbH and CItE are zero, the frame is safe, from the point


Section 2.3.2 seems to just repeat what is in section 2.3.

The document seems to use two different names for the 32 bits:
"Extension Header Flags" and "Extended Header Flags". I don't know by
what name other draft refer to this field.

Thanks,
    Erik