Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: No Objection
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-irb/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two minor comments: 1) There are only few SHOULDs and MUSTs in this whole document and where they are used it is often not very clear what the action is that should follow and how it should be implemented (e.g. "The network operator MUST ensure the consistency of the tenant ID on each edge RBridge for each routing domain."). And maybe there are actually more case where normative language should be used? Please double-check the use of normative langauge in this document! 2) A similar question on the following part: „If a tenant is deleted on an edge RBridge RB1, RB1 SHOULD re- advertise the local tenant Data Label, tenant gateway MAC, and related IP prefixes information of the rest tenants to other edge RBridges. […] Therefore the transient routes consistency won't cause issues other than wasting some network bandwidth.“ Wasting network resources actually can be an issue. So why is this not an MUST? _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
