Return-Path: X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490A921F8475 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:50:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FoqGZHNgWoeu for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E49321F8470 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:46 -0600 Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.139) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:34 -0600 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4019B1FF0043 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q7HHnw6C138362 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:50:02 -0600 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q7HHpHiO025826 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:51:17 -0600 Received: from d03nm127.boulder.ibm.com (9-16-16-115.AHE.BOULDER.IBM.COM [9.16.16.115] (may be forged)) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q7HHpH1c025823 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:51:17 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <502C1EA0.7050305@acm.org> To: "trill@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: C62D16F4:064B9E54-87257A5D:00618E3C; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 Message-ID: From: Sunny Rajagopalan Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:50:01 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM127/03/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 08/17/2012 11:49:58, Serialize complete at 08/17/2012 11:49:58 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0061F7E288257A5D_=" X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12081717-4242-0000-0000-0000029F1BF7 Subject: Re: [trill] Any comments on Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL - draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00 X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:50:48 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0061F7E288257A5D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Are the authors of this draft planning to respond to these comments at all? A protocol spec that doesn't talk about what to do on link failure is incomplete, to say the least. From: Sunny Rajagopalan/Santa Clara/IBM@IBMUS To: Erik Nordmark Cc: trill-bounces@ietf.org, "trill@ietf.org" Date: 08/15/2012 03:28 PM Subject: Re: [trill] Any comments on Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL - draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00 Sent by: trill-bounces@ietf.org I had sent out comments on this a while back, and none of them have been addressed. To summarize the issues: 1) What happens when one of the CE-rbridge links fails? The draft doesn't talk about this scenario. I listed the possible solutions in my earlier email; are the authors planning to adopt one of them, or do they have another fix in mind? 2) The solution doesn't work if the CE switches are interconnected, but this is but this is not documented in the draft. What happens if they get interconnected accidentally? What is the process for recovery? This needs to be discussed in the draft. More details here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg04984.html From: Erik Nordmark To: "trill@ietf.org" Date: 08/15/2012 03:14 PM Subject: [trill] Any comments on Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL - draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00 Sent by: trill-bounces@ietf.org We are trying to understand if this document is getting close to WG last call, but we don't know how many have read the document. If you have reviewed the document, please let us know. If not, this might be a good time to review the document and provide comments. Thanks, Erik and Donald _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill --=_alternative 0061F7E288257A5D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Are the authors of this draft planning to respond to these comments at all? A protocol spec that doesn't talk about what to do on link failure is incomplete, to say the least.



From:        Sunny Rajagopalan/Santa Clara/IBM@IBMUS
To:        Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Cc:        trill-bounces@ietf.org, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Date:        08/15/2012 03:28 PM
Subject:        Re: [trill] Any comments on Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL        - draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00
Sent by:        trill-bounces@ietf.org



I had sent out comments on this a while back, and none of them have been addressed.
To summarize the issues:
1) What happens when one of the CE-rbridge links fails? The draft doesn't talk about this scenario. I listed the possible solutions in my earlier email; are the authors planning to adopt one of them, or do they have another fix in mind?

2) The solution doesn't work if the CE switches are interconnected, but this is but this is not documented in the draft. What happens if they get interconnected accidentally? What is the process for recovery? This needs to be discussed in the draft.
More details here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg04984.html




From:        Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
To:        "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Date:        08/15/2012 03:14 PM
Subject:        [trill] Any comments on Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL        - draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00
Sent by:        trill-bounces@ietf.org




We are trying to understand if this document is getting close to WG last
call, but we don't know how many have read the document.

If you have reviewed the document, please let us know.
If not, this might be a good time to review the document and provide
comments.

Thanks,
  Erik and Donald
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill

_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
--=_alternative 0061F7E288257A5D_=--