Subject: [trill] Fwd: Nits on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:02 -0700

FYI: I had sent these nits to the authors a while back.
I think it makes sense to revise the draft to take care of the nits 
below, and then send it to the IESG.

The "verbatim reproduction of the Inner Ethernet Header" should probably 
be left alone at this point in time.

Regards,
    Erik

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Nits on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-channel
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:25:46 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Shouldn't this say something slightly different than MUST be zero?
       CHV: A 4-bit field that gives the RBridge Channel Header Version
             and MUST be zero.
Something like "This document specifies version zero."

The verbatim reproduction of the Inner Ethernet Header in section 2.1
means that this document would need to be revised as a result of things
like fine grained labels. Wouldn't it make sense to instead do this by
reference to RFC6325 instead of reproducing the exact header? That gives
us the flexibility to have documents which update RFC6325 without
touching this document.

Section 2.2 tries to rename the Op-len field in the base protocol to be
Ext-len. I think I commented on this being confusing and not worth-while
for the extensions draft, thus I think the channel draft can use the
same wording as the extensions draft (which does not attempt to rename
the field.)

Section 6.2 says
    The IEEE Registration Authority has been assigned the Ethertype <TBD>
    for RBridge-Channel.

"has been assigned" should probably be "has assigned".
Do we already have an allocated number to replace the TBD?

Typo: "particuclar"

    Erik

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 23:17:58 -0400

Hi,

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to revise the draft to take care of the nits below,
> and then send it to the IESG.
>
> The "verbatim reproduction of the Inner Ethernet Header" should probably be
> left alone at this point in time.
>
> Regards,
>   Erik
>

OK

> us the flexibility to have documents which update RFC6325 without

As draft specifically discusses various fields in the Inner Ethernet
header including the VLAN tag, and as per your note above, I don't
think this should be changed.

> same wording as the extensions draft (which does not attempt to rename

OK.

> Do we already have an allocated number to replace the TBD?

OK

> Typo: "particuclar"

OK.

Also, Vishwas Manral's email address in the Author Info Section has a
typo that should be fixed.

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