Subject: [trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:40:10 -0800

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

S 2.

   plane on the edge RBridges, it should be possible to completely
   suppress flooding of ARP/ND messages in a TRILL Campus, When all end-
   station MAC addresses are similarly known, it should be possible to
   suppress unknown unicast flooding by dropping any unknown unicast
   received at an edge RBridge.

Are these "should be possibles" normative? Descriptive?

S 4.
This is a sequence of steps, so it would be nice to preface them with
a list of the steps. It's also odd to have SEND considerations right
in the middle here.

4.3 Get Sender's IP/MAC Mapping Information for Non-zero IP
Please explain what a non-zero IP is and why it's relevant.
This graf also needs an introductory sentence or something before
the bullets.

S 4.4.
   It is not essential that all RBridges use the same strategy for which
   option to select for a particular ARP/ND query. It is up to the
   implementation.

This seems inconsistent with the MUST in arm (b) below, because I
can just take some other arm. It's also kind of surprising to be this
non-prescriptive.

S 8.
   some other location (MAC/VM Mobility) and gets connected to egde-

Nit: edge is mispelled.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:26:07 -0500

Hi Eric,

Thanks for clearing your DISCUSS. See responses below to your
remaining COMMENTs.

> draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-09: No Objection

The following sentence was added earlier in Section 2 to make it clear
that these were not normative:
   "This section is a general discussion of this
   problem and is not intended to be normative."

> This graf also needs an introductory sentence or something before

Section 4.3 has been re-named. "non-zero" no longer occurs anywhere in
this document. An introductory paragraph was added before the bullets.

> can just take some other arm. It's also kind of surprising to be this

This is not actually inconsistent. The paragraph at the beginning of
Section 4.4 explains that which lettered "arm" you take is fixed by
the situation; it is an implementation choice which numbered sub-arm
to take under each lettered arm.

>    some other location (MAC/VM Mobility) and gets connected to egde-

As far as I can see, the misspelling of edge has been fixed in -09.

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

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 06:29:08 -0800

Sorry, this is just the result of bad tooling combined with lack of coffee.
When you change a Discuss to a No Objection it keeps the comments. I agree
the current text is fine.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:37:52 -0500

Oh.

OK, Thanks,
Donald