Hi Keyur, Version -06 has been posted which I believe resolves your comments. It also has other improvements.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Keyur, > > Thanks for your review. See below: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Keyur, >> >> Thank you very much for your review. >> >> Regards, >> Alia >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Keyur Patel (keyupate) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. >>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related >>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on >>> special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the >>> Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir. >>> >>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it >>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last >>> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through >>> discussion or by updating the draft. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-05 >>> Reviewer: Keyur Patel >>> Review Date: 27-Apr-2016 >>> Intended Status: Standards Track >>> >>> >>> Summary: >>> The document is well written and seems ready for the publication. No major >>> issues found. Minor nits are listed below. > > Thanks. > >>> Major Issues: >>> None. >>> >>> Minor Issues >>> >>> Intended Status: "Standards Track" Please. > > OK, Standard -> Standards > >>> Section 1, 3 paragraph: S/will be described/is described. > > OK. > >>> Section 11.1, Do you need to define any error conditions where multiple >>> flag bits are set? > > It would be pretty peculiar for the the R and C flags to be set on the > same nickname, since R is normally set on one or a few core switches > and C is normally set on a large number of edge switches, but I don't > off hand see any particular problem with both R and C being set on the > same switch. Traffic should still be delivered correctly. The use of > the IN flag, specified in RFC 7780, and the SE flag, specified in > draft-ietf-trill-irb, seem orthogonal; so I don't think there is any > problem with any combination of flags. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] > >>> Regards, >>> Keyur _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
