Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

I’ve got some comments on Matthew’s review, inline. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport- > over-mpls-02 > > > > Hi, > > > > I have been assigned the QA reviewer for this

Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

Kingston, On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler wrote: > > Typically PBB-VPLS is used to avoid exposing the customer MAC in service > provider network. In case of TRILL packet over MPLS, already the customer > MAC is encapsulated inside the TRILL header.

Re: [trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-06

Donald, I agree with your recommended changes. While we’re discussing the draft, I've previously commented that it has several places where interoperability between implementations could be difficult because there are several implementation choices that can be made, and the draft doesn’t make

Re: [trill] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-07.txt

Donald, Thanks, my comments are resolved. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > This revision is intended to resolve the comments from Andy Malis and > myself. > > Thanks, > Donald > === > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd

Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-MPLS - 1 week extension to WG LC (11/11/2017 to 11/25/2017) - 1/19/2018 to 1/26/2018

Sue, My comments have been resolved, and I feel that this draft is ready for publication. And to answer your first question, yes, this is needed functionality. Thanks, Andy On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > This begins a 1 week extension to the WG LC for

Re: [trill] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-07: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen, I don’t want to speak for the authors. However, I did contribute to this draft (although not this specific section). So that said, here’s my two cents …. I agree that first sentence could have been worded better, but the bottom line is that depending on the model used, the security