Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 14 January 2016 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 E16381AD0C3; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 XJf67v1tuWmW; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3BD1A87E2; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.177;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812B20594@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812B20594@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:19:48 -0500
Message-ID: <009101d14e69$a9af5df0$fd0e19d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0092_01D14E3F.C0DB51C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQL15fzkkqp+Hn+XsETcmeq5U2UM+Zyw/GoQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/VxThT5HHuW_JkiwqgihpN6FyKYM>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection.all@tools.ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01
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: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 01:19:55 -0000

Daniele: 

 

Thank you for this review.  

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:52 PM
To: <rtg-ads@ietf.org> (rtg-ads@ietf.org)
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection.all@tools.ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org; trill@ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01

 

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see  <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-01
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: Jan 07 2015
IETF LC End Date: September 2015 
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary: 

*	This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. 

Comments:

*	Overall the draft if well written and easy to understand. I found it quite difficult to go through section 1 but I guess it’s due to my lack of knowledge of the technology. A rearrangement accordingly to the minor issues IMO would improve readability of the document.  

Major Issues:

*	No major issues found

Minor Issues:

*	Section 3.2 – A list of the 4 TLVs with their name and one sentence summarizing its use would improve readability. Same applies in the following to e.g. section 3.2.1 where the paragraph before the figure is not very clear on the usage of the TLV.
*	Section 3.5 – Section 3.5 defines a fifth TLV, why not listing it with the other 4 ?

Nits:

*	Section 1.1: s/ the ingress RBridge use/the ingress RBridge uses
*	Section 2: s/campus/Campus
*	Section 3.1 s/is/has ??
*	Section 3.3 s/rfc7180bis/RFC7180bis

BR
Daniele