Re: [trill] Shepherd's review Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-02.txt

"Susan Hares" <> Wed, 10 August 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0691B12D616; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.739
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PK8zfXrplkIN; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC64712D642; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: <>
References: <0a6801d1f33b$dc589d30$9509d790$>
In-Reply-To: <0a6801d1f33b$dc589d30$9509d790$>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:30:24 -0400
Message-ID: <0a7e01d1f33d$a4874c60$ed95e520$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0A7F_01D1F31C.1D7648A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFgYLavMros8ZZ+vZhG7QJG+gULKqEluZLg
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake' <>,, 'Jon Hudson' <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Shepherd's review Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:31:15 -0000

Trill WG: 


I missed one other editorial change for RFC6439bis-02.txt. 


RFC7180 has been obsoleted by RFC7780.  This needs to be changed.




From: trill [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:18 PM
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake';; 'Jon Hudson'
Subject: [trill] Shepherd's review Review of


Status: Ready to publish 

Concerns: None 


Editorial nits: 


Section 2.2.1 - paragraph 6 sentence starting with /should the VLANs - it
would help if the sentence was broken into to sentences. 

Section 4.0 - 4th paragraph - in the 1st numbered sub-paragraph - the
sentence starting with /This is backward/


Is "backward compatible" correct English.  My understanding is that it would
"backwardly compatible" (adverb adjective-noun). 

This sentence would also benefit from breaking it in 2. 



Sue Hares