I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: June-18-2012 IETF LC End Date: June-20-2012 IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, however I have a few comments. Minor issues: TRILL-PORT-VER sub-TLV should be "PORT-TRILL-VER" sub-TLV.(there are a few occurrences) Nits/editorial comments: - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 2, spell out first occurrence LSP - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 5, "overload bit on" ----> "overload bit set" - Clarification:[Page 6], Section 2.1, line 5, add a comma "," after "traffic engineered frames" - Typo:[Page 6], last word, "contain" --missing s--> "contains" - Suggestion: [Page 7], Section 2.2, line 2, spell out first occurrence of "Reverse Path Forwarding Check" and then use "RPFC" in the rest of the document. - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, line 5, sentence starting with "RB2 MUST advertise ...": we could omit the second occurrence of "it might use" in that sentence. - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, 3rd line from last, "end stations connected to RB": "a RB" or "RBs"? - Typo: [Page 11], Section 3.1,"( j, k)" --remove extra space--> "(j, k)" - Suggestion: [Page 11], Section 3.2, "already in flight" ----> "already in transmission" - Typo [Page 12]:"many multi-destination frame"--missing s--> "many multi-destination frames" - Clarification:[Page 13], Point 4. , Sentence 2: suggested clarification: "It does so by checking LSPs it receives and updating its link state database for any of its nicknames held with higher priority by another TRILL Switch that is IS-IS reachable." - Typo [Page 14]:"unicast Channel message"--missing s-->"unicast Channel messages" - Typo [Page 16]: Section 5.2,"Routeing" ----> "Routing" - Suggestion:[Page 16],last sentence, suggestion: "This safety margin is called "Margin" below." - Typo [Page 18]:"a specified in [RFC6325]"--missing s-->"as specified in [RFC6325]" - Suggestion: [Page 19], spell out first occurrence of EISS - Suggestion:[Page 21], Point 1, not clear what the new text becomes. Suggestion: refer to last paragraph of section 3.1 instead of paragraph before 3.2, and propose the new sentence. - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 2, it is not clear what the change is to section 3.2 of RFC6327. - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 3, it would be clearer to say "bullet A9 is added" (if this is an event like the rest of the bullets in section 3.3 of RFC6327) - Clarification:[Page 22], section 10.1,"disagreement over the Designated VLAN or the like". Suggestion: replace the term "or the like" with other examples or remove the term. -Typo: [Page 22], section 10.1, "each others frames"---->"each other's frames" -Typo: [Page 24], "DRB SHOULD NOT appointed"---->"DRB SHOULD NOT appoint", "an VLAN"---->"a VLAN", "RBridged"---->"RBridge" -Clarification:[Page 25], Section 11, Point 1, "The previously reserved", reference to document. - Clarification: [page 19/page 27], Informative References, reference [802], to verify which standard we want to refer to for Canonical Format Indicator: If it is "IEEE Std 802-2001: IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture", then the date should be 7 February 2001." However this specific document does not define CIF. You may want to refer to 802.1Q-2005. Thanks, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
