Hi Sue, The -11 version just posted is intended to resolve your comments.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sue, > > Thanks for the review. > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: >> Donald, Yizhou, Linda, and Radia: >> >> Thank you for your work on draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms. >> Each draft improves the readability and nails down some of the potential >> edge cases. I believe we are nearing the end of this journey toward IESG >> approval. I am joining with you on this journey by doing a shepherd review >> at the end of IETF LC. >> >> >> Status: Ready to publication, with some editorial nits you should consider >> >> >> >> Here’s my editorial nits on the latest version. Please address #2 – that >> deals with the “SEND” functionality and #6 >> >> >> #1, p. 5 paragraph 1, list item 3. – simple spelling error >> >> Old:/MAC addresses “nomrally” / >> New: /MAC Addresses normally/ > > OK. > >> #2. p. 17-22 – section 3 >> >> #2.a Overall – I think you need to include SEND messages in this Query >> messages. > > OK. > >> #2.b p17, section 3.0 paragraph 5 specific text change >> >> Old:/The requests to Pull Directory servers are typically derived from >> ingressed ARP [RFC826], ND [RFC4861], RARP [RFC903], or >> data frames with unknown unicast destination MAC addresses, intercepted by >> an ingress TRILL switch as described in Section 1.1/ >> >> New:/ The requests to Pull Directory servers are typically derived from ARP >> [RFC826], ND [RFC4861], RARP [RFC903], or SEND [RFC3971] messages or data >> Layer 2 frames with unknown unicast destination MAC addresses intercepted by >> an ingress TRILL switch as described in Section 1.1/ >> >> Reason: SEND mechanisms need to be clearly specified in the draft. Suresh >> Krishnan mentioned this on the ARP optimization draft. > > OK. > >> #3 p. 19, section 3.2.1 paragraph 1, sentence 3 >> >> Old: /The priority of the channel message is a mapping of the >> priority of the frame being ingressed that caused the query with the >> default mapping depending, per Data Label, on the strategy (see >> Section 4) or a configured priority (DirGenQPriority, Section 3.9) >> for generated queries./ >> >> New:/ The priority of the channel message is a mapping of the >> priority of the ingress frame which caused the query combined with the >> default mapping per Data Label depending on the strategy for generated >> queries (see Section 4) or a configured priority (DirGenQPriority, >> Section 3.9/. >> >> Reason: Clarify sentences. > > I agree this could use clarification. How about: > > The priority of the channel message is a mapping > of the priority of the ingressed frame that caused the query. > The default mapping depends, per Data Label, on the strategy > (see Section 4) or a configured priority (DirGenQPriority, Section > 3.9) for generated queries. > >> #4, p. 33 section 3.5.1 paragraph 3 >> >> Old:/ The Bridge shown might be a complex bridged LAN or might be absent >> if, as shown for End Station 1, End Station 2 was dual ported with >> point-to-point Ethernet links to RB1 and RB2./ >> >> New:/The Bridge shown might be a complex bridged LAN, a LAN without a bridge >> (as shown in End station 1), or connected via point-to-point links (as shown >> in >> End Station 2’s which is connected through a bridge with point-to-point >> Ethernet links to >> RB1 and RB2./ >> >> Reason: Clarify the sentences > > OK. > >> #5, p. 33 section 3.5.1 paragraph 4 sentence 1. >> >> Old:./ >> Because an indirect Pull Directory server discards information it has >> cached from queries to an end station Pull Directory server if it >> loses adjacency to that server (Section 3.7), if it knowns that such >> information may be cached at RBridge clients and has no other source >> for the information, it MUST send Update Messages to those clients >> withdrawing the information/ >> >> New: /Since an indirect Pull Directory server discards information it has >> cached from queries to an end station Pull Directory server if it >> loses adjacency to the server (Section 3.7), if it detects that >> information may be cached at RBridge clients and has no other source >> for the information, it MUST send Update Messages to those clients >> withdrawing the information/ >> >> Words changed – in bold >> >> Why: anthropomorphism – TRILL switches do not know. TRILL switches detect >> based on logic. >> >> Why: Because/since – both indicate causes, but “since” seems to indicate an >> ordering that this paragraph suggests. > > OK. > >> #6: p. 43, 4th paragraph beginning with Although some … >> >> Current text: >> /Although some of the ports sending TRILL ES-IS PDUs are on end >> stations and thus not on routers (TRILL switches), they nevertheless >> may make use of the Router Capability (#242) and MT-Capability (#222) >> IS-IS TLVs to indicate capabilities as elsewhere specified./ >> >> It would be good to indicate where these capabilities are specified. > > OK, we can add a reference to RFC 7176 > >> #7 p. 44, section 6 – Security considerations >> >> After the SEC-DIR review comes in, consider if the end-system engage >> requires some extra text on privacy related to the end-systems. >> >> Since Donald and Radia are much better at all types of security, please >> consider this as a “please check”. Kathleen and Stephen are focused on >> this work. > > We could add something about edge RBridges being more aware of what IP > addresses are being used. > > 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
