Hi Alvaro, Thanks for your comments. Please see inline below.
________________________________________ From: Alvaro Retana [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 15:33 To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-06: (with COMMENT) Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-06: 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-mtu-negotiation/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Are there implementations of this optimization? Have they shown the expected improvements? The mechanism seems ok, but the introductory text made we wonder, specially the part about "*potentially* improving the efficiency of link utilization and speeding link state convergence." IOW, if the advantages are not really know, then maybe a Standards Track document is premature. I really don't have a strong opinion, so I'm just wondering at this point. [Mingui] Only if Lz is larger than Sz, link-scoped PDUs can be formatted greater than Sz. Otherwise, efficiency remains the same. That is why the document indicate "potentially". Some nits: 1. There are some places where rfc2119 language is used that I think is out of place because it is really just stating a fact or quoting what different documents say (without actually using quotations); IOW, these are really not normative statements defined in this document: - "[RFC6325] describes the way RBridges agree on the campus-wide minimum acceptable inter-RBridge MTU...all RBridges MUST format their LSPs..." - "As specified in [RFC8139], RBridges MUST support..." - "as required by [RFC7780], all RBridges MUST..." [Mingui] Got it. The RFC2119 language has been removed for those occurrences. 2. From 2.1, these 2 sentences are redundant: "An originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment MUST be ignored. An originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment is ignored. " [Mingui] One of them has been dropped. Thanks, Mingui _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
