Oh. OK, Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected]
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, this is just the result of bad tooling combined with lack of coffee. > When you change a Discuss to a No Objection it keeps the comments. I agree > the current text is fine. > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> Thanks for clearing your DISCUSS. See responses below to your >> remaining COMMENTs. >> >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for >> > draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: No Objection >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > COMMENT: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > S 2. >> > >> > plane on the edge RBridges, it should be possible to completely >> > suppress flooding of ARP/ND messages in a TRILL Campus, When all end- >> > station MAC addresses are similarly known, it should be possible to >> > suppress unknown unicast flooding by dropping any unknown unicast >> > received at an edge RBridge. >> > >> > Are these "should be possibles" normative? Descriptive? >> >> The following sentence was added earlier in Section 2 to make it clear >> that these were not normative: >> "This section is a general discussion of this >> problem and is not intended to be normative." >> >> > S 4. >> > This is a sequence of steps, so it would be nice to preface them with >> > a list of the steps. It's also odd to have SEND considerations right >> > in the middle here. >> > >> > 4.3 Get Sender's IP/MAC Mapping Information for Non-zero IP >> > Please explain what a non-zero IP is and why it's relevant. >> > This graf also needs an introductory sentence or something before >> > the bullets. >> >> Section 4.3 has been re-named. "non-zero" no longer occurs anywhere in >> this document. An introductory paragraph was added before the bullets. >> >> > S 4.4. >> > It is not essential that all RBridges use the same strategy for which >> > option to select for a particular ARP/ND query. It is up to the >> > implementation. >> > >> > This seems inconsistent with the MUST in arm (b) below, because I >> > can just take some other arm. It's also kind of surprising to be this >> > non-prescriptive. >> >> This is not actually inconsistent. The paragraph at the beginning of >> Section 4.4 explains that which lettered "arm" you take is fixed by >> the situation; it is an implementation choice which numbered sub-arm >> to take under each lettered arm. >> >> > S 8. >> > some other location (MAC/VM Mobility) and gets connected to egde- >> > >> > Nit: edge is mispelled. >> >> As far as I can see, the misspelling of edge has been fixed in -09. >> >> 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
