Hi Mirja, A -14 version has been uploaded that is intended to resolve your comment.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mirja, > > Thanks for your comments. See below. > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote: >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: No Objection >> >> ... >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Two minor comments: >> >> 1) There are only a 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 language in this document! > > OK. > >> 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? > > Wasting bandwidth can be an issue but is not necessarily an issue, > particularly if it occurs only during a brief transient period. TRILL > does not make it mandatory to implement with the maximum link > utilization efficiency. For example, TRILL multi-destination traffic > is send over a distribution tree. If there are no devices interested > in traffic in a particular VLAN further down a branch of the tree, it > is recommended that traffic heading down that branch be pruned. But > this is not mandatory. The TRILL campus will operate "correctly" > without such pruning and if someone wants to make a very simple, low > end implementation without pruning, so be it. (As far as I know, all > existing TRILL implementation do prune distribution trees.) > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
