Subject: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:19:31 -0400

HI,

The plan is for Erik Nordmark to be document shepherd of this draft.

In reviewing the email, Erik has concluded that Section 3.4 should
state that it is essential that all RBridges in a campus do the
calculation in the same way as it affects the RPFC check. Also, as an
editorial change, it would be useful to add a list of the changes made
to RFC 6325 by this draft.

In addition, the last sentence of Section 4 is not complete. While it
is not possible to send a specifically addressed unicast Channel
message to an RBridge that does not have a nickname, such and RBridge
can receive a unicast Channel message from a neighbor sent to the
Any-RBridge nickname and can receive multi-destination Channel
messages under some circumstances.

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

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 10:11:25 -0700

> to RFC 6325 by this draft.

To clarify and expand on this a but, there were some emails on the list 
saying that the changes in section 3.4 are good, but that all the 
RBridges have to use the same calculation or the RPF check will drop 
packets that shouldn't be dropped. Assuming that is correct, then it 
would make sense to specify in section 3.4 that this change causes an 
incompatibility with 6325 (and explain the issue a bit) but that it 
makes sense to fix this (there were reasons posted on the list).

I think it would also be good to have an additional section titled
"Incompatible changes" which just contains a sentence which refers to
section 3.4.

    Erik

> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>