Subject: [trill] Nits on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-extension

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:37:42 -0700

I have a few nits from reading the document as part of preparing to send 
it to the IESG.
Would it make sense to fix these before we send it in?

Section 2 says:
    If Op-Length is zero there is no header extension present;
    else, this area follows immediately after the Ingress Rbridge
    Nickname field of the TRILL Header.

That is a bit confusing, since "area" isn't used earlier in the text.
Either the prior sentence should say "extensions area", or the above
should say "the extensions follows".

I think it would be useful to mention that these two are specified in
6325 (but without the 'S' being part of their names):
     0-3  Crit.: Critical summary bits.
          0 CHbHS: Critical Hop-by-Hop extension(s) are present.
          1 CItES: Critical Ingress-to-Egress extension(s) are present.

Typo in section 2.3.1: Should be "CHbHS"
       critical hop-by-hop extensions, MUST drop the frame. If the CHbH

And many more lines have missing 'S':
    CItES: If the CItE (Critical Ingress to Egress Summary) bit is a one,
       extensions area.  If the CItE bit is zero, no such extensions are
       present.  If either CHbH or CItE is non-zero, egress RBridges that
       If both CHbH and CItE are zero, the frame is safe, from the point

Section 2.3.2 seems to just repeat what is in section 2.3.

The document seems to use two different names for the 32 bits:
"Extension Header Flags" and "Extended Header Flags". I don't know by
what name other draft refer to this field.

Thanks,
    Erik

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:22:24 -0400

Hi,

I think these are all editorial changes so I'll just make then and
post a new version. See below

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have a few nits from reading the document as part of preparing to send it
> to the IESG.

OK.

>         1 CItES: Critical Ingress-to-Egress extension(s) are present.

OK.

>      critical hop-by-hop extensions, MUST drop the frame. If the CHbH

OK.

>      If both CHbH and CItE are zero, the frame is safe, from the point

OK.

> Section 2.3.2 seems to just repeat what is in section 2.3.

I agree. 2.3.2 is completely redundant and should be deleted.

> what name other draft refer to this field.

I believe that "Extended Header Flags" is best and "Extended" should
be preferred. But when referring to the 32-bit word of flags, it is
reasonable to call it an "extension", so not all occurrences of
"extension" are necssarily an error. Most references to this draft are
from the Channel draft which uses "extended".

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