Hi Alia,

Thanks for the review. Please refer the response inline below. The 05 version 
incorporated those comments and has been uploaded.

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 1:47 AM
To: trill@ietf.org; draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickn...@ietf.org
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03

As is traditional, I have done my AD review of 
draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03.  First, I would like to thank 
the authors - Margaret, Donald, Mingui, and Dacheng - as well as the reviewers 
and shepherd, Sue, for their work on this document.

I do have some minor comments, but these can be addressed ASAP while the draft 
is in IETF Last Call.  I will request that to start and place this on the IESG 
telechat on March 8.


Minor:

a) In Sec 3.1, it says "
      1) RB27 and RB3 have learned that D is connected to nickname 44.
      2) RB27 has learned that nickname 44 is accessible through RB3."

Given that RB2 is the local area's Level Border Router, I think that is RB2 not 
RB3. Granted, RB3 needs to know also - but that is info from its local area.

[Mingui] While it’s correct to say both RB2 and RB3 know D is connected to 
nickname 44 beforehand, it’s not a necessary condition. Consider this: RB27 
learned D is connected to nickname 44, it will set the egress nickname to 44. 
RB2 and RB3 can acquire this info from the TRILL header rather than the local 
MAC table.  So the accurate sentence is “RB27 has learned that D is connected 
to nickname 44.”

b) In Sec 4.3:
" For nicknames in these ranges, other RBridges will deem that they are owned 
by the originating border RBridge. The paths to nicknames that fall in these 
ranges will be calculated to reach the originating border RBridge. TRILL Data 
packets with egress nicknames that are neither in these ranges nor announced by 
any RBridge in the area MUST be discarded. "

I think this only applies if OK = 0 - and that needs to be restated as part of 
the condition.

[Mingui]  Correct. The “OK=1” bullet does not apply here. So, this paragraph is 
now merged into the “OK=0” bullet.

Thanks,
Mingui

Regards,
Alia

_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill

Reply via email to