I just reviewed draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-01, with particular
attention to the pseudowire encapsulation used in sections 3.4 and 4.3.
While technically correct, the details were a bit on the sparse side,
especially for section 3.4. I’ve got some suggested replacement text:
Section 3.4:
I’ve got some comments on Matthew’s review, inline.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-
> over-mpls-02
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have been assigned the QA reviewer for this
Kingston,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler
wrote:
>
> 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 reall
esolves your comments?
>
> My apologies for taking so long.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Umair
>
>
>
> *From:* trill [mailto:trill-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G.
> Malis
> *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:40 PM
> *To:* Kingston Smiler
> *Cc:* Bocci,
to resolve your Comments.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Umair
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agma...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:21 PM
> *To:* Mohammed Umair
> *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); rtg-...@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-
Sue,
I found that this draft 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.
1. There
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
Donald,
Thanks, my comments are resolved.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> This revision is intended to resolve the comments from Andy Malis and
> myself.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (
Sue,
My comments have been resolved, and I feel that this draft is ready for
publication. And to answer your first question, yes, this is needed
functionality.
Thanks,
Andy
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> This begins a 1 week extension to the WG LC for
> draft-ietf-tri
Kathleen,
I don’t want to speak for the authors. However, I did contribute to this
draft (although not this specific section). So that said, here’s my two
cents ….
I agree that first sentence could have been worded better, but the bottom
line is that depending on the model used, the security cons
10 matches
Mail list logo
