Hi Alissa, A -11 version of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes has been uploaded with the intent of resolving your discuss. Please look at it and see if you can clear.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote: >> Hi Fangwei, >> >> As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before >> reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in >> 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows >> two >> bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2 >> bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two >> inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed >> to be. > > I agree that the figure is a little confusing. I suggest the following: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Length | (1 byte) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+ > |F|M| RSV | VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | ................. | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > >> Alissa >> >> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, hu.fang...@zte.com.cn wrote: >> >> Hi，Alissa Cooper >> >> Thanks for your review and comments. >> >> The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments. >> >> The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the >> following: >> >> The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of >> VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits. >> >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Length | (1 byte) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes) >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | ................. | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | MAC (N) (6 bytes) | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> >> Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV >> >> >> o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit >> FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub- >> TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all >> subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits >> is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no >> VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero. >> >> >> >> >> Regards. >> >> Fangwei. >> >> 原始邮件 >> 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in> >> 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org> >> 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org >> <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org >> <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org >> <trill@ietf.org> >> 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45 >> 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: >> (withDISCUSS and COMMENT) >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: Discuss >> >> 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-smart-endnodes/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART >> reviewer: >> >> All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really >> is. >> Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits >> called >> out >> in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it >> would >> be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1. >> >> Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected >> lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the >> number >> of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the >> text >> per field. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
