Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Alissa, A -11 version of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes has been uploaded with the intent of resolving your discuss. Please look at it and see if you can clear. Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote: >> Hi Fangwei, >> >> As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before >> reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in >> 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows >> two >> bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2 >> bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two >> inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed >> to be. > > I agree that the figure is a little confusing. I suggest the following: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+ > |F|M| RSV | VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (1)(6 bytes)| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | . | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (N)(6 bytes)| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Thanks, > Donald > === > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > >> Alissa >> >> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, hu.fang...@zte.com.cn wrote: >> >> Hi，Alissa Cooper >> >> Thanks for your review and comments. >> >> The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments. >> >> The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the >> following: >> >> The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of >> VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits. >> >> >>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Length | (1 byte) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | . | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV >> >> >>o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit >> FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub- >> TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all >> subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits >> is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no >> VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero. >> >> >> >> >> Regards. >> >> Fangwei. >> >> 原始邮件 >> 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in> >> 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org> >> 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org >> <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org >> <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org >> <trill@ietf.org> >> 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45 >> 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: >> (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss >> >> 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
Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote: > Hi Fangwei, > > As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before > reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in > 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows two > bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2 > bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two > inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed > to be. I agree that the figure is a little confusing. I suggest the following: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+ |F|M| RSV | VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC (1)(6 bytes)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC (N)(6 bytes)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com > Alissa > > On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, hu.fang...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi，Alissa Cooper > > Thanks for your review and comments. > > The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments. > > The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the > following: > > The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of > VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits. > > >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | . | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV > > >o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit > FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub- > TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all > subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits > is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no > VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero. > > > > > Regards. > > Fangwei. > > 原始邮件 > 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in> > 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org > <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org > <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org > <trill@ietf.org> > 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45 > 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: > (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss > > 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-smart-endnodes/ > > > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART > reviewer: > > All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is. > Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called > out > in bullets 4 and 5 be
Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Fangwei, As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows two bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2 bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed to be. Alissa > On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, hu.fang...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi，Alissa Cooper > > Thanks for your review and comments. > > The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments. > > The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the > following: > > The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of > VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits. > > > >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | . | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV > > >o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit > FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub- > TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all > subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits > is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no > VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero. > > > > Regards. > > Fangwei. > > 原始邮件 > 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in> > 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org > <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org > <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org > <trill@ietf.org> > 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45 > 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: > (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss > > 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-smart-endnodes/ > > > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART > reviewer: > > All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is. > Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called > out > in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it > would > be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1. > > Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected > lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the number > of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the text > per field. > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments. > > > ___ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
Re: [trill] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi，Alissa Cooper Thanks for your review and comments. The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments. The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the following: The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub- TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero. Regards. Fangwei. 原始邮件 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in> 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org> 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org <trill@ietf.org> 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss 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-smart-endnodes/ -- DISCUSS: -- This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART reviewer: All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really is. Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits called out in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it would be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1. Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the number of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the text per field. -- COMMENT: -- Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments.___ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
