Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:12:46 +0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2014-01-20
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-22
IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23

Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

o  Label: This carries the fine-grained label identifier for all
       subsequent MAC addresses in this sub-TLV, or the value zero if no
       label is specified.

I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly "fine-grained 
label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is defined later in 
the document, can you please add a forward reference. If it is defined 
in another document, can you please add a reference to that.

In Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1:

What are the requirements on backward compatibility between different 
versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid 
for version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them 
in the document.

Nits/editorial comments: None

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:45:07 -0500

Hi Alexey,

Thanks for your review, see below:

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
>
> I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly
> "fine-grained label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is
> defined later in the document, can you please add a forward
> reference. If it is defined in another document, can you please add
> a reference to that.

Fine grained labels are specified in draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-07,
which is an approved standard track draft in the RFC Editor's
queue. Adding a reference to it here would be good.

> versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid for
> version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them in the
> document.

There are no explicit requirements. Incremental changes and
improvements are generally handed with capability bits or the
presence/absence of data strucutres in control messages. A version
change would probably indicate a pretty major modification but, since
these version numbers are within IS-IS TLVs, I would say that
implicitly the intent is to stay with the IS-IS PDU structure for the
control plane.

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:11:35 +0000

Hi Donald,

> queue. Adding a reference to it here would be good.
Sounds great. Thanks.
> implicitly the intent is to stay with the IS-IS PDU structure for the
I think the document should state that. Also, if you want any messages 
to be unchanged (fully or partially) irrespectively of version numbers, 
you should state that too.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:01:42 +0200

Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I expect the draft to be revised. Will you take care of that, Donald?

Jari

On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the document should state that. Also, if you want any messages to be unchanged (fully or partially) irrespectively of version numbers, you should state that too.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:21:04 -0500

Hi Jari,

> Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised vali…

I have a version ready to post with some minor editorial fixes and the
like and would be happy to include the missing reference to
draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling; however, I would prefer not to include
the somewhat hand-waving text I wrote about TRILL protocol version
number and I am not sure how long it would take to come up with a good
statement on that...

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:12:31 +0200

On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:21 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling;

Great!

> however, I would prefer not to include
> statement on that…

Ok

Jari