Hi Sue,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:
> Trill WG:
>
> I missed one other editorial change for RFC6439bis-02.txt.
>
> RFC7180 has been obsoleted by RFC7780. This needs to be changed.
Well, the only reference to RFC 7180 is in Appendix B where it is, in
fact, talking about RFC 7180 being obsoleted by RFC 7780. This is why
RFC 7180 was listed as an Informational reference while the many
references to RFC 7780 are mostly normative and it is listed as a
normative reference. I suggest just changing "[RFC7180]" to "RFC 7180"
in the appendix so hopefully the nits checker won't notice it :-)
See below.
> Sue
>
> From: trill [mailto:trill-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:18 PM
> To: trill@ietf.org
> Cc: 'Donald Eastlake'; draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439...@ietf.org; 'Jon Hudson'
> Subject: [trill] Shepherd's review Review of
> draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-02.txt
>
> Status: Ready to publish
> Concerns: None
>
> Editorial nits:
>
> Section 2.2.1 - paragraph 6 sentence starting with /should the VLANs - it
> would help if the sentence was broken into to sentences.
I think the best think to do might be to parenthesis the "example" and
then to indent the remainder of the paragraph after the ":". See
attached for what the paragraph would then look like.
> Section 4.0 - 4th paragraph - in the 1st numbered sub-paragraph - the
> sentence starting with /This is backward/
>
> Is "backward compatible" correct English. My understanding is that it would
> "backwardly compatible" (adverb adjective-noun).
I think "backward compatible" is a common computer term. I suppose it
is some sort of compound adjective. How about if it is hyphenated?
> This sentence would also benefit from breaking it in 2.
OK.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
> Sue Hares
It should be straightforward for the DRB to send, within one Hello,
the appointments for several dozen VLAN IDs or several dozen blocks
of contiguous VLAN IDs. Should the VLANs that the DRB wishes to
appoint be inconveniently distributed (for example the proverbial
case where the DRB RB1 wishes to appoint RB2 forwarder for all even-
numbered VLANs and appoint RB3 forwarder for all odd-numbered VLANs)
the following method may be used:
The network manager normally controls what VLANs are enabled on an
RBridge port. Thus, the network manager can appoint an RBridge
forwarder for an arbitrary set of scattered VLANs by enabling only
those VLANs on the relevant port (or ports) and then having the
DRB send an appointment that appears to appoint the target RBridge
forwarder for all VLANs. However, for proper operation and inter-
RBridge communication, the Designated VLAN for a link SHOULD be
enabled on all RBridge ports on that link, and it may not be
desired to appoint the RBridge forwarder for the Designated VLAN.
Thus, in the general case, it would require two appointments,
although it would still only require one appointment if the
Designated VLAN were an extreme low or high value such as VLAN
0xFFE or the default VLAN 1.
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
