Subject: [trill] Fwd: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:13:35 -0500

Forwarded with permission.

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Novak (janovak) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:58 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: PM-DIR review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00
>
> Hi Al,
>
> As promised what feels like life-time ago (after 3 weeks
> in really thin air - for me at least - with no energy left
> to retain any memories of the times before :-)) I have
> read through this draft:
>
> draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-00
>
> It uses the metrics defined by the IPPM RFCs 2679, 2680
> and 2681 in very detailed manner - looked like RFC6390 was
> inspired by those :-).
>
> The section 2.2 with the metric definitions for the purpose of
> this document might benefit from clearer references to the IPPM
> work:
>
> 1) The packet delay definitions refer to RFC6905 which then
> just refers to 2679 and 2681
>
> 2) Packet Loss misses the reference at all, I just assumed it would be
> RFC2680 (if not a RFC6390 compliant definition would be needed)
>
> 3) Far-end and near-end loss definitions need the reference as well
> and probably a bit of text explaining it is just a variance of the
> RFC2680 definition specific for the TRILL environment but without
> a need for another fully blown definition
>
> Regards, Jan
>
> The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young, and the
> strong envy them ....
>                                  Dr. Johnson