Hi Matthew and Andy,
New Version -05 is just posted, Could you look at this version which is intended 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-m...@ietf.org; trill@ietf.org; Kingston Smiler *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02 Umair, You added PBB being out of scope for this document to section 3.4, but it doesn’t say that anywhere else, such as in the introduction or the abstract. Is it really out of scope? The text in section 6 doesn’t scan, the first two sentences should be joined together by a comma rather than a period and starting a new paragraph. But it still doesn’t make sense to me, because the second part talks about what happens in the VPTS model if there’s a pseudowire failure, but the first part of the doesn’t say anything about a pseudowire failure in the VPLS model (which, as we noted, doesn’t present a problem if you’re running spanning tree or H-VPLS with PW redundancy in the VPLS). Cheers, Andy On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Mohammed Umair < mohammed.uma...@ipinfusion.com> wrote: Hi Matthew and Andrew, Could you look at version -04 to see if this resolves 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, Matthew (Nokia - GB); rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-m...@ietf.org; trill@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02 Kingston, On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler <kingstonsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: <Kingston> 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 really need to consider TRILL over PBB-VPLS. </Kingston> PBB (and by extension, PBB-VPLS) is not just used for C-MAC hiding, but also for provider infrastructure scaling, so I would think the answer is yes. Matthew, do you agree? Cheers, Andy . -- .
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill