Subject: [Pppext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol
	Author(s)       : J. Carlson
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2010-05-27

The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] defines a Link Control Protocol
(LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multi-protocol traffic
over point-to-point links.  This document describes support for
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
PPP links.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:45:13 -0400

Hi,

Although I am not a PPP expert, I think this draft looks pretty good.
Now that TRILL has been approved as a Proposed Standard,  I think this
draft should be advanced.

However, I do have a question on one sentence:
In Section 3 on Page 4, numbered item 2, the following sentence occurs:
               If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to
      pass unencapsulated frames nor to any TRILL-ignorant peer to be
      concerned about.

I assume that most of the end of this sentence shouldn't be there...

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

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:40:06 -0400

> I assume that most of the end of this sentence shouldn't be there...

I think there's just an extra word in the sentence (s/nor to/nor/).  It
reads better as:

	If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to
	pass unencapsulated frames, as the link can have no TRILL-
	ignorant peer to be concerned about.

The point of sending unencapsulated is to make sure that TRILL-ignorant
nodes are able to see the traffic.  But, since this is point-to-point,
we can be certain that "everyone" (i.e., the one guy we're sending to)
knows TRILL.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>