Hi Jari, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the > comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's > IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I expect the > draft to be revised. Will you take care of that, Donald?
I have a version ready to post with some minor editorial fixes and the like and would be happy to include the missing reference to draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling; however, I would prefer not to include the somewhat hand-waving text I wrote about TRILL protocol version number and I am not sure how long it would take to come up with a good statement on that... Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Jari > > On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Donald, >> >> On 20/01/2014 16:45, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>> Hi Alexey, >>> >>> Thanks for your review, see below: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>> >>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >>>> comments you may receive. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01 >>>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov >>>> Review Date: 2014-01-20 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-22 >>>> IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23 >>>> >>>> >>>> Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track >>>> RFC. >>>> >>>> Major issues: None >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> >>>> o Label: This carries the fine-grained label identifier for all >>>> subsequent MAC addresses in this sub-TLV, or the value zero if no >>>> label is specified. >>>> >>>> I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly >>>> "fine-grained label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is >>>> defined later in the document, can you please add a forward >>>> reference. If it is defined in another document, can you please add >>>> a reference to that. >>> Fine grained labels are specified in draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-07, >>> which is an approved standard track draft in the RFC Editor's >>> queue. Adding a reference to it here would be good. >> Sounds great. Thanks. >>>> In Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1: >>>> >>>> What are the requirements on backward compatibility between different >>>> versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid >>>> for >>>> version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them in the >>>> document. >>> There are no explicit requirements. Incremental changes and >>> improvements are generally handed with capability bits or the >>> presence/absence of data strucutres in control messages. A version >>> change would probably indicate a pretty major modification but, since >>> these version numbers are within IS-IS TLVs, I would say that >>> implicitly the intent is to stay with the IS-IS PDU structure for the >>> control plane. >> I think the document should state that. Also, if you want any messages to be >> unchanged (fully or partially) irrespectively of version numbers, you should >> state that too. >> >> Best Regards, >> Alexey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
