[trill] Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Thu, 12 January 2017 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.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 2021F12940D; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:04:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148423706509.29345.14522113109638417885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:04:25 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/nUFh8FFINYcXfm0JcvAx466EqPE>
Cc: dromasca@gmail.com, draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
Subject: [trill] Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04
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, 12 Jan 2017 16:04:25 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Has Issues

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments 
just like any other last call comments. 

This document clarifies and updates the TRILL Appointed
 Forwarder mechanism. It updates RFC 6325, updates RFC 7177, and
 obsoletes RFC 6439.

It's a complex document which requires extra reading to understand the
context and the interraction with other RFCs. I believe that from an
OPS-DIR perspective there are issues that need to be discussed before
the document can be approved. 

The main issues with the document in its current form are: 

1. The document makes consistent changes in the way TRILL operates. It
replaces TLVs and procedures, define new ones, obsoletes previous
mechanisms that define VLAN mapping, and incorporates updated material
from other RFCs. There is however no indication in the text about the
transition between existing deployed versions of TRILL based on RFC
6439 and related protocols with the current updated mechanisms. Are
these backward compatible? Do they need a simultaneous upgrade of the
whole network? 

2. The document lacks a section or even minimal text concerning
operational and manageability considerations.  There are several
mentions in the text concerning network managers or operator actions,
but there is no indication or reference to what management protocols
and data models are to be used for configuration, retrieval of
operational status information, or alerts. I believe that these need
to be added explicitly or by reference.