[trill] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: No Objection

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-address-flush/



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

Thanks to everyone who contributed to writing this document.

I'm concerned that the interaction between the various extensible Address Flush
message TLVs isn't very clearly spelled out. As far as I can tell, the text that
attempts to describe the interactions is:

>     If the set of MAC addresses accumulated from parsing the address
>  flush message is null, the message applies to all MAC addresses.
>     If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV is
>  true, then the address flush message applies to all Data Labels and
>  the set of Data Labels and block of Data labels specified has no
>  effect. If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV
>  is false, then the address flush messages applies only to the set of
>  Data Labels accumulated from parsing the message; if that set is
>  null, the address flush message does nothing.

Based on this (and the fact that their implementation is optional), I infer
that the MAC address TLVs are intended to further restrict the addresses
indicated by TLV types 1 through 5, rather than expand upon them. I'm less
sure about whether they have any impact on Type 6. I would expect that they
do, but the text above ("applies to all Data Labels") kind of sounds like they
don't.

What would seem to make sense here (inasmuch as it provides maximal flexibility)
is:

if (TLV7 ∪ TLV8 = {})
  Addresses to Flush = (TLV1 ∪ TLV2 ∪ TLV3 ∪ TLV4 ∪ TLV5 ∪ TLV6)
else
  Addresses to Flush = (TLV1 ∪ TLV2 ∪ TLV3 ∪ TLV4 ∪ TLV5 ∪ TLV6) ∩ (TLV7 ∪ TLV8)

If that's the intention, I think the normative explanation needs to be clearer.
If that's not the intention, I sill think the normative explanation needs to be
clearer.

My remaining comments are editorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand the following acronyms upon first use and in the title;
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance.

 - TRILL
 - TC
 - TCN
 - MSTP

While the following terms are defined in cited documents, you may wish to also
consider expanding them in this document's acronym list for the convenience of
the reader:

 - MAC
 - FCS

Finally, please explain the use of "RB1" in the Introduction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  Another example is based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
>  Topology") presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network via
>  multiple RBridge ports.

This should be either:

   Another example, based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
   Topology"), presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network via
   multiple RBridge ports.

or...

   Another example is based on Appendix A.3 of [RFC6325] ("Wiring Closet
   Topology"), which presents a bridged LAN connected to a TRILL network
   via multiple RBridge ports.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1.1:

>  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>  document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

This document makes use of lowercase versions of these terms as well; please
consider using the RFC 8174 boilerplate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>  VLANs/FGLs if it occurs in any TLV in the address flush message. A
>  MAC addresses might be indicated more than once due to overlapping

"A MAC address..." or "MAC addresses..."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>  MAC addresses if it occurs in any TLV in the address flush message.
>     If the set of MAC addresses accumulated from parsing the address
>  flush message is null, the message applies to all MAC addresses.
>     If the flag indicating the presence of an All Data Labels TLV is
>  true, then the address flush message applies to all Data Labels and

The staggered indenting here looks a bit odd. Were these intended to be a
bulleted list?