On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote:
> Hi Fangwei,
>
> As I noted in response to the Gen-ART reviewer, I managed to ballot before
> reading the rest of this thread (sorry!), but I still think the diagram in
> 4.3 is confusing and not consistent with the text. To my eye row 3 shows
two
> bytes’ worth of fields but the label says “4 bytes.” RSV is depicted as 2
> bits but the text says it is 6 bits. The combination of these two
> inconsistencies makes it hard to know what the actual lengths are supposed
> to be.
I agree that the figure is a little confusing. I suggest the following:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+
|F|M| RSV | VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ................. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
> Alissa
>
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:55 AM, hu.fang...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
> Hi，Alissa Cooper
>
> Thanks for your review and comments.
>
> The new version(version 10) has updated to fix your comments.
>
> The format of Smart-MAC APP sub-TLV and the text has been changed to the
> following:
>
> The length of F,M,RSV,VLAN/FGL data Label is 4 bytes. and the length of
> VLAN/FGL Data Label field is 24 bits.
>
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte)
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Length | (1 byte)
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |F|M|RSV| VLAN/FGL Data Label | (4 bytes)
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | ................. |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Figure 3 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV
>
>
> o VLAN/FGL Data Label: 24bits. If F is 1, this field is a 24-bit
> FGL Data Label for all subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-
> TLV. Otherwise, if F is 0, the lower 12 bits is the VLAN of all
> subsequent MAC addresses in this APPsub-TLV, and the upper 12 bits
> is not used(sent as zero and ignored on receipt). If there is no
> VLAN/FGL data label specified, the VLAN/FGL Data Label is zero.
>
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Fangwei.
>
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：AlissaCooper <ali...@cooperw.in>
> 收件人：The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> 抄送人：draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org
> <draft-ietf-trill-smart-endno...@ietf.org>trill-cha...@ietf.org
> <trill-cha...@ietf.org>sha...@ndzh.com <sha...@ndzh.com>trill@ietf.org
> <trill@ietf.org>
> 日 期 ：2018年03月07日 04:45
> 主 题 ：Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10:
> (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-10: 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-smart-endnodes/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This should hopefully be easy to fix and was pointed out by the Gen-ART
> reviewer:
>
> All of section 4.3 is confusing as to what the length of the TLV really
is.
> Row 3 in the diagram says 2 bytes or 4 bytes, but the number of bits
called
> out
> in bullets 4 and 5 below it don't seem to add up to those things. Maybe it
> would
> be better to draw a diagram with F=0 and a separate diagram with F=1.
>
> Please make it clear both in the diagram and in the text what the expected
> lengths of the fields are -- I find it particularly confusing that the
> number
> of bits pictured doesn't align with the number of bits specified in the
text
> per field.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please also look at the Gen-ART reviewer's other comments.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
