Version -06 posted as requested. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected]
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Donald, > > Could you please submit this ? > > Thanks, > Alia > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Alvaro, >> >> Attached is a candidate -06 version of draft-ietf-trill-address-flush >> (my internal version 39) intended to resolve your comments. Also >> attached is a diff against the currently posted -05. Can you take a >> looks and see if your comments are satisfied? >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =============================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=155+Beaver+Street,+Milford,+MA+01757+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> >> [email protected] >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Alvaro, >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for >> >> draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: No Objection >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> COMMENT: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> I have some non-blocking comments/questions: >> >> >> >> (1) Why are the 2 VLAN Block encodings needed? More important, when >> should >> >> each be used? Section 2.2 says that "All RBridges implementing the >> Address >> >> Flush RBridge Channel message MUST implement types 1 and 2, the VLAN >> types...", >> >> but I didn't see anything about the VLAN Block Only Case (2.1). I'm >> wondering >> >> if there will be cases where the support won't match and the message >> will then >> >> be ineffective. >> > >> > I suppose some wording could be added but the idea is that the VLAN >> > Block Only Case is part of the basic message and always has to be >> > implemented, as opposed to the extensible list of TLV types. The >> > message is structured so that you can't use both the VLAN Block Only >> > Case and the extensible TLV structure to specify VLANs at the same >> > time. The VLAN Block Only Case is expected to be common and >> > corresponds more closely to deployed code. >> > >> >> (2) In the 2.2.* sections, the description of some of the TLVs says >> (when the >> >> Length is incorrect) that "...the Address Flush message MUST be >> discarded if >> >> the receiving RBridge implements Type x". What if that type is not >> supported >> >> -- I would assume you still want to discard? BTW, the Type 5 >> description >> >> doesn't qualify dropping based on the type support. >> > >> > If the Type is not implemented, then how would you know that the >> > length is not valid? How would you currently code a length validity >> > check for types to be specified in the future as part of the >> > extensibility of the message? But, since there is a length field, you >> > can always skip over a TLV you don't understand. The qualification >> > based on type support should be there for Type 5 also. (Of course, in >> > the real world, I think inconsistent Address Flush message type >> > support in a TRILL campus will be very rare.) >> > >> >> (2a) Other descriptions (type 1,2,6) just talk about ignoring (not >> discarding). >> >> Is there an intended difference in the behavior? >> > >> > There is no intended difference between "ignoring" and "discarding" an >> > Address Flush message. (Types 1, 2, and 6 are the mandatory to support >> > types so there is no conditional on support.) >> > >> >> (3) Section 2 says that "Address Flush protocol messages are usually >> sent as >> >> multi-destination packets...Such messages SHOULD be sent at priority >> 6". It is >> >> not clear to me whether unicast packets (mentioned later) should also >> have the >> >> same priority. >> > >> > Yes, probably throwing in "including unicast Address Flush messages" >> > would clarify. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Donald >> > =============================== >> > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell) >> > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=155+Beaver+Street,+Milford,+MA+01757+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> >> > [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> trill mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill >> >> >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
