Subject: Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

From: Mohammed Umair <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 20:36:09 +0530

Hi Matthew and Andy,

New Version -05 is just posted, Could you look at this version which is
intended to resolve your Comments.

Regards,

Umair

*From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[email-masked]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:21 PM
*To:* Mohammed Umair
*Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Kingston
Smiler
*Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

Umair,

You added PBB being out of scope for this document to section 3.4, but it
doesn’t say that anywhere else, such as in the introduction or the
abstract. Is it really out of scope?

The text in section 6 doesn’t scan, the first two sentences should be
joined together by a comma rather than a period and starting a new
paragraph. But it still doesn’t make sense to me, because the second part
talks about what happens in the VPTS model if there’s a pseudowire failure,
but the first part of the doesn’t say anything about a pseudowire failure
in the VPLS model (which, as we noted, doesn’t present a problem if you’re
running spanning tree or H-VPLS with PW redundancy in the VPLS).

Cheers,

Andy

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mohammed Umair <
[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Matthew and Andrew,

Could you look at version -04 to see if this resolves your comments?

My apologies for taking so long.

Regards,

Umair

*From:* trill [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
*Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:40 PM
*To:* Kingston Smiler
*Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
*Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02

Kingston,

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

<Kingston>

Typically PBB-VPLS is used to avoid exposing the customer MAC in service
provider network. In case of TRILL packet over MPLS, already the customer
MAC is encapsulated inside the TRILL header. Having said that, do we really
need to consider TRILL over PBB-VPLS.

</Kingston>

PBB (and by extension, PBB-VPLS) is not just used for C-MAC hiding, but
also for provider infrastructure scaling, so I would think the answer is
yes. Matthew, do you agree?

Cheers,

Andy

.

-- 
.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 11:19:54 -0400

Umair,

Looks good to me, thanks! Matthew?

Cheers,
Andy