Subject: [rbridge] Queries on RFC 6325 trunk bit

From: rakesh kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:12:40 +0530

Hi Authors,
>From RFC6325,Section 4.9.1
End station service disable (trunk port) bit. When this bit is
set, all native frames received on the port and all native frames
that would have been sent on the port are discarded. (See Appendix
B.) (Note that, for this document, "native frames" does not
include layer 2 control frames.) *By default, ports are not
restricted to being trunk ports.*

>From RFC6325,Section 5.3
Four per-port configuration bits: disable port (default 0 ==
enabled), *disable end station service (trunk, default 0 ==
enabled)*, access port (default 0 == not restricted to being an
access port), and use P2P Hellos (default 0 == use TRILL
Hellos). (See Section 4.9.1.)

i think,above highlighted things are conflicting with each other in the
latter section
5.3 for disable end station service description should have been "default
0== not
restricted to being an trunk" otherwise it will give wrong impression of
trunk bit 0
will enable trunk mode by default.

Regards,
Rakesh
_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:14:30 -0500

Hi Rakesh,

> include layer 2 control frames.) By default, ports are not
> restricted to being trunk ports.
>
> From RFC6325,Section 5.3
> enabled), disable end station service (trunk, default 0 ==
> enabled), access port (default 0 == not restricted to being an

While it might have been nicer if the two sections had used parallel
wording, I do not see any conflict. The wording change you suggest
would have been a good editorial improvement. Too bad it wasn't
suggested before the RFC actually issued.

The "disable end station service (trunk, default 0 == > enabled)"
wording in Section 5.3 means that by default end station service is
enabled. That is the simplest reading and is consistent with the rest
of the RFC including Section 4.9.1 which is the longest, most
detailed, and dominant discussion of these bits. Apparently you are
worried that it will be read in 5.3 as meaning "enable disable end
station service", a more complex and odd sounding reading that is
inconsistent with the rest of the RFC.

How about if I add something to
draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-clear-correct to update and expand
section 1.2 of RFC 6325 to say the the precedence ordering between the
sections of the RFC to resolve any apparent conflicts is

    4 > 3 > 7 > 5 > 2 > 6 > 1

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]