Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04: Discuss
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-rfc6439bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.4 (Overload and Appointed Forwarders) talks about potential Appointed Forwarders which are overloaded. In IS-IS, a node with the overload bit set "shall not" (ISO 10589) be considered for transit. However, the use of "SHOULD NOT appoint an RBridge in overload" and "SHOULD re-assign VLANs from the overloaded RBridge" leaves a potential hole in the proper forwarding of TRILL data packers. Why aren't MUST NOT/MUST used? Is there something in the specific use of IS-IS by TRILL that I am missing? I think this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear; either point to the piece I'm missing, or don't use an overloaded node. _______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
