[trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Thu, 07 July 2016 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietf.org
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1389B12B053; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160707015330.26824.25840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 18:53:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/ihRPFkTgXkv7BX2Xfx2iJxb1Gjk>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, trill@ietf.org
Subject: [trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Jul 2016 01:53:30 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-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-channel-tunnel/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though the IANA Considerations section was just updated (in version
-10), I am putting in this DISCUSS because it is still
incomplete/incorrect.

1. Guidance for managing the SubERR namespace should be included.  Note
that this document only specifies values for ERR 6, but guidance should
be given to IANA for the other ERR values as well.

2. Section 6.2.1 (RBridge Channel Error Codes Subregistry) requests the
creation of a new registry ("RBridge Channel Error Codes”), but that
registry was already created by RFC7178.  This document should then split
the requests in two parts: assignment of the vales 6-8, and the change to
the registration procedure.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From Section 2. (RBridge Channel Header Extension Format), is the RESV4
field a space that is reserved for potential future use?  Why isn’t it
ignored on receipt (similar to the RESV field in Section 4.3)?  If there
is potential for use of this space (RESV is defined as 4 bits, which
makes me think about potential bit-level allocations), then there should
be some guidance in the IANA Considerations.