Subject: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization WG Last Call (11/15 - 12/6)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:39:44 -0500

Re-forwarding to get the right link to the WG LC.

Sue 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 8:59 PM
To: 'Donald Eastlake'; 'Liyizhou'; [email-masked]; 'Radia Perlman';
'Mohammed Umair'
Cc: 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Donald Eastlake 

Donald, Yizhou, Linda, Radia, and Mohammed: 

I reviewed the TRILL ARP/ND optimization this evening (after my head finally
clear from allergies).  I do not believe you have answered Suresh Krishnan’s
issues about SEND clearly.   I see 80% of the logic, but no place where you
clearly indicate when SEND should be used.   I think you have answered 90%
of Alvaro’s concerns, but I’m concerned that without specific references to
SEND and clear indication about the SEND messages. 

Here’s a set of changes that I think might work to resolve.     

Cheerily, 

Sue 

----------

#1 

Page 5 – section 4, title

Old:/ Handling ARP/ND messages/

New:/Handling ARP/ND/SEND messages/

#2 – change paragraph #3 – to add SEND 

                /in ND/ to  /in ND and SEND/

#3 – Could you as section 4.1,  a short description about send that
includes: 

1)      Why Send is needed, 

2)      How send interacts with ND, 

3)      Intermixing Topology – is this topology allowed

SEND ßà RBRIDGE ------RBRDGE ßàND 

[IMHO – this is a.2 or could be part of a.5] 

4)      When SEND should be used 

#3 – Could you add a section 4.2 – 1 paragraph that indicates why or why not
the RBRIDGE would verify the address. 

#4 – section 4.1 (change to section 4.3) 

                Add send by OLD%ARP/ND% to New%ARP/ND/SEND% 

#5 – section 4.2 (change to section 4.4) 

5.1 Paragraph 2, item a) 

change ARP/ND request to  ARP/ND/SEND request 

Change a.2 from ARP/ND to ARP/ND/SEND 

Change a.5 from ARP/ND to ARP/ND/Send request 

5.2 paragraph 3 – item b)  

Change sentence 1:   Old% ARP/ND%  New% ARP/ND/SEND%

Change sentence 3 end 

Old:/target’s private key and only action b.1/

New/target’s private key therefore only action b.1/ 

5.2 paragraph 4 – item c)

Change sentence 1:  OLD%ARP/ND% NEW%ARP/ND/SEND%

5.3 paragraph 5) item d) 

Include in the DAD [RFC4862] the ND and SEND version 

#6 – describe what happens if SEND CGA option does not exist in send, or
fails

This can be a new section or a re-written section 7 or a sub-section to
section 7.

Describe what happens SEND CGA exists, does not exist, or fails due to the
wrong key.   

This could also go in a revised section 4.1 

Section 8 – expand this to include the SEND functionality.  

Thanks