Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I expect the draft to be revised. Will you take care of that, Donald?
Jari On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote: > Hi Donald, > > On 20/01/2014 16:45, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> Hi Alexey, >> >> Thanks for your review, see below: >> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov >> <alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote: >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >>> comments you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis-01 >>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov >>> Review Date: 2014-01-20 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-22 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23 >>> >>> >>> Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC. >>> >>> Major issues: None >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> o Label: This carries the fine-grained label identifier for all >>> subsequent MAC addresses in this sub-TLV, or the value zero if no >>> label is specified. >>> >>> I fully admit ignorance of the topic, but what is exactly >>> "fine-grained label" and where is the exact format defined? If it is >>> defined later in the document, can you please add a forward >>> reference. If it is defined in another document, can you please add >>> a reference to that. >> Fine grained labels are specified in draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-07, >> which is an approved standard track draft in the RFC Editor's >> queue. Adding a reference to it here would be good. > Sounds great. Thanks. >>> In Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1: >>> >>> What are the requirements on backward compatibility between different >>> versions of TRILL. Are TLVs formats supported for a version N also valid for >>> version N+M? If you have any implied assumptions, please state them in the >>> document. >> There are no explicit requirements. Incremental changes and >> improvements are generally handed with capability bits or the >> presence/absence of data strucutres in control messages. A version >> change would probably indicate a pretty major modification but, since >> these version numbers are within IS-IS TLVs, I would say that >> implicitly the intent is to stay with the IS-IS PDU structure for the >> control plane. > I think the document should state that. Also, if you want any messages to be > unchanged (fully or partially) irrespectively of version numbers, you should > state that too. > > Best Regards, > Alexey > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
