Umair, Looks good to me, thanks! Matthew?
Cheers, Andy On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Mohammed Umair < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matthew and Andy, > > > > New Version -05 is just posted, Could you look at this version which is > intended to resolve your Comments. > > > > Regards, > > Umair > > > > *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:21 PM > *To:* Mohammed Umair > *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Kingston > Smiler > > *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of > draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02 > > > > Umair, > > > > You added PBB being out of scope for this document to section 3.4, but it > doesn’t say that anywhere else, such as in the introduction or the > abstract. Is it really out of scope? > > > > The text in section 6 doesn’t scan, the first two sentences should be > joined together by a comma rather than a period and starting a new > paragraph. But it still doesn’t make sense to me, because the second part > talks about what happens in the VPTS model if there’s a pseudowire failure, > but the first part of the doesn’t say anything about a pseudowire failure > in the VPLS model (which, as we noted, doesn’t present a problem if you’re > running spanning tree or H-VPLS with PW redundancy in the VPLS). > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mohammed Umair < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Matthew and Andrew, > > > > Could you look at version -04 to see if this resolves your comments? > > My apologies for taking so long. > > > > Regards, > > Umair > > > > *From:* trill [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. > Malis > *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:40 PM > *To:* Kingston Smiler > *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of > draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02 > > > > Kingston, > > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > <Kingston> > > Typically PBB-VPLS is used to avoid exposing the customer MAC in service > provider network. In case of TRILL packet over MPLS, already the customer > MAC is encapsulated inside the TRILL header. Having said that, do we really > need to consider TRILL over PBB-VPLS. > > </Kingston> > > > > PBB (and by extension, PBB-VPLS) is not just used for C-MAC hiding, but > also for provider infrastructure scaling, so I would think the answer is > yes. Matthew, do you agree? > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > . > > > > .
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
