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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@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 A959D1270AC; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:28:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-address-flush@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151802452668.4857.14724101557577914249.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:28:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/r3BhlnfHdOxgqWsuLTIrcH1HN44>
Subject: [trill] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:28:47 -0000

Alvaro Retana 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some non-blocking comments/questions:

(1) Why are the 2 VLAN Block encodings needed?  More important, when should
each be used?  Section 2.2 says that "All RBridges implementing the Address
Flush RBridge Channel message MUST implement types 1 and 2, the VLAN types...",
but I didn't see anything about the VLAN Block Only Case (2.1).  I'm wondering
if there will be cases where the support won't match and the message will then
be ineffective.

(2) In the 2.2.* sections, the description of some of the TLVs says (when the
Length is incorrect) that "...the Address Flush message MUST be discarded if
the receiving RBridge implements Type x".  What if that type is not supported
-- I would assume you still want to discard?  BTW, the Type 5 description
doesn't qualify dropping based on the type support.

(2a) Other descriptions (type 1,2,6) just talk about ignoring (not discarding).
 Is there an intended difference in the behavior?

(3) Section 2 says that "Address Flush protocol messages are usually sent as
multi-destination packets...Such messages SHOULD be sent at priority 6".  It is
not clear to me whether unicast packets (mentioned later) should also have the
same priority.