Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-05: 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-multi-topology/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The extensions defined in this document are "an optional TRILL switch capability". To me, that indicates that the base TRILL specifications rfc6325 and rfc7177 (in this case) are not affected: an RBridge is TRILL-compliant as long as it implements what rfc6325 specifies (without these optional extensions). I would then like to see the formal "Updates" tags removed. [The publication of this document is not the place to argue about the meaning of "Updates", so I'll defer to what the Responsible AD decides.] _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
