Subject: [trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-06

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:05:05 -0500

Hi,

There are a bunch of RFCs referenced in this draft but not listed in the
References section. They need to be added to the References.

I think the Security Considerations section, while it provides a good set
of references, needs one added sentence: something about how the document
does not change the security considerations because it uses existing
standards without change.

Section 5 is very short and seems like it could be moved up and merged with
the Introduction. (The section number of the following sections would be
reduced by one.)

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

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:45:46 -0500

Donald,

I agree with your recommended changes.

While we’re discussing the draft, I've previously commented that it has
several places where interoperability between implementations could be
difficult because there are several implementation choices that can be
made, and the draft doesn’t make any particular recommendations or require
any of the choices to be implemented. I have some proposed text to fix this.

1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft
doesn’t recommend which to use. The draft should recommend the VPTS model
as the default, as it is an emulated TRILL service. This can be fixed in
either section 2 or section 6 (or both) by adding “As this is an emulated
TRILL service, for interoperability purposes the VPTS model is the
default.” I'll let the draft authors decide if section 2 or section 6 (or
both) is better for this.

2. When using the VPTS model, section 4.3 says that either the PPP or
Ethernet encapsulation from RFC 7173 can be used, and makes no
recommendation between them. However, RFC 7173 defines the PPP
encapsulation as the chosen default, and that encapsulation should be used
here as well. This can be fixed by adding “In accordance with [RFC7173],
the PPP encapsulation is the default.”

Thanks,
Andy

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Section 5 is very short and seems like it could be moved up and merged
> with the Introduction. (The section number of the following sections would
> be reduced by one.)
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell)
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>
>