Thanks! I had a quick look and this looks good to me. Also on the 2. point
below, I know understand why there is a SHOULD; you potentially could add one
more sentence to explain why this is a SHOULD. But I leave this on you.
Mirja
On 05.07.2016 15:35, Donald Eastlake wrote:
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
