Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-05

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 24 June 2016 04:09 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 244C512D147; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ywsZeU2Zzhpz; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 D245312B02F; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id u201so99843968oie.0; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2N8cEheKN97NDRlcfsvweVRVGRAWZiC/ImsWQ67DAnM=; b=rGcOoC0YDD+hlFCN+QQmm9UHYrrJVepwa6/EMCa/ooLn58mBRtgxGSXae+U5um4WL7 P2oiLXN2S5h8REymKpg8buvGVogckK+PrMQJKzpl21D3Rn9C64RHCeChkGhhh4DJCLH8 MY0EidW3dtDSk5Sv1vF+sSxrz3FUgFXAeMEYVx3qHManpkM7rXNto8hybSLCQI3gugdS S0v3RxWlfnQeYwvElCUAvOt0tSNAlJQ7639HFFmh8mNcVPeMiwkwzN/p7dsuGUqF9d9C Mf/Vv0sJs8wdXzT6p0M+LTRqBsB+gYa9gcKdVTnVmVFB1IyHkfX5qe3fA1BfXnL5wvcN KOjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2N8cEheKN97NDRlcfsvweVRVGRAWZiC/ImsWQ67DAnM=; b=ebTcKLOwD8LrMXp7NydJUTsTlJ+bz8kTIUTGDYJyvC1kg4fqydiQPpTWdwmvpti/Sw +PheO+pBf1MJS98fizIJvMjqGGAiou+i8JWpLhDyCesagg426heleyAI0i4ZOI4Ky4oH pcwlae0+AUe1lolVucvQmJt755v9x/DlGI70MFx3rvGSY5gIhb2kWqXX6FcbpietGWlf 3PEGMtqE/UTb3Krv23pFOMVgqLZ/Hhh7Py5FVS6vF3vqqMLkt4ImoahbSmm2XzUYeuAP kdAwtNr8x1XKubrBbbDydiEsEE53O/kcYDwtQ2BmyN2xtunng3RLF03nIKa8VHExhbTC eY9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIoMKKrKpCG+38C8NhVFGgSpamMVs275WPQGNmsQcA5kXkxTVETxKNzhV1JfYrwTaW/geLFDs+TNKxoww==
X-Received: by 10.157.63.234 with SMTP id i39mr1466982ote.170.1466741347132; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.242 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEG0BXwrd0tPu9OKRKHLpTKNK+AY4Fdoxu9_rfPtRP=xwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D3468B9D.3E1EC%keyupate@cisco.com> <CAG4d1reO+WwB5QethGKXc8NiWo1s5yE=2piN-GADJOzaqUWipw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEG0BXwrd0tPu9OKRKHLpTKNK+AY4Fdoxu9_rfPtRP=xwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHLEW5BOi5Y3=FYEW6ix+OwwDdzB9PsbCYG=K37Ye_Wog@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <keyupate@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/p-5najLT02x4f2WoMb1CEGRUb_M>
Cc: Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, Routing ADs <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-05
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:09:10 -0000

Hi Keyur,

Version -06 has been posted which I believe resolves your comments. It
also has other improvements.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Keyur,
>
> Thanks for your review. See below:
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Keyur,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your review.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Keyur Patel (keyupate) <keyupate@cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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-centralized-replication-05
>>> Reviewer: Keyur Patel
>>> Review Date: 27-Apr-2016
>>> Intended Status: Standards Track
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>> The document is well written and seems ready for the publication. No major
>>> issues found. Minor nits are listed below.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>> Major Issues:
>>> None.
>>>
>>> Minor Issues
>>>
>>> Intended Status: "Standards Track" Please.
>
> OK, Standard -> Standards
>
>>> Section 1, 3 paragraph: S/will be described/is described.
>
> OK.
>
>>> Section 11.1, Do you need to define any error conditions where multiple
>>> flag bits are set?
>
> It would be pretty peculiar for the the R and C flags to be set on the
> same nickname, since R is normally set on one or a few core switches
> and C is normally set on a large number of edge switches, but I don't
> off hand see any particular problem with both R and C being set on the
> same switch. Traffic should still be delivered correctly. The use of
> the IN flag, specified in RFC 7780, and the SE flag, specified in
> draft-ietf-trill-irb, seem orthogonal; so I don't think there is any
> problem with any combination of flags.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>
>>> Regards,
>>> Keyur