[trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-05: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 E79B1126D85; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 06:05:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.74.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152051790690.14018.12630385210703102002.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 06:05:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/s0m5-Ryvlytmgo4fylnRSYA6o3s>
Subject: [trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:05:07 -0000

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-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-multi-topology/



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

Review in context: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3642

A diagram in the introduction would have helped me.

            Grained Label [RFC7172]. By implication, an "FGL TRILL
            switch" does not support MT.
You are using MT before expansion here. But I actually don't understand why it
does not. Can you explain?

            implication, a "VL RBridge" or "VL TRILL switch" does not
            support FGL or MT.
My same question here as above. Why can't a VL TRILL switch support MT?

   (1) all TRILL switch ports on the link advertise topology T support
       in their Hellos and
   (2) if any TRILL switch port on the link requires explicit TRILL Data
Probably stupid question but how do you know that there aren't TRILL switches
that you haven't heard from yet that don't support T?

     V -  The version number of the MT label. This document specifies
         version zero.
What do I do if I receive an unknown version?

         +  There may be non-zero topologies with no multi-destination
            traffic or, as descried in [RFC5120], even topologies with
            no traffic at all. For example, if only known destination
Nit: described

            topology, there would be no need for a distribution tree for
            topology T.  For this reasons, a Number of Trees to Compute
            of zero in the Trees sub-TLV for the TRILL switch holding
Nit: "reason"