Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-05

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:30:55 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-05
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 3 August 2014
IETF LC End Date: 21 July 2014
IESG Telechat date: 7 August 2014

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
[Ready with nits]

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Section 6.4: who allocated opcodes? I.e. is there a registry?

Nits:

I think it would be better to say that all "Reserved" fields are set to 
0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:16:10 -0400

Hi Alexey,

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive.
>

These OAM OpCodes were created by and originally all under the control
of IEEE 802.1; however, 802.1 allocated the block of 32 OpCodes from
32 to 63 to ITU-T as documented in [802.1Q]. I don't think ITU-T
maintains an explicit registry other than the listing of assigned
OpCodes out of their range that appears in [Y.1731] but I could be
wrong.

Perhaps a sentence could be added to the end of Section 6.4 such as
"These OpCodes are from the range of values that has been allocated by
IEEE 802.1 [802.1Q] for control by ITU-T."

> Nits:
>
> I think it would be better to say that all "Reserved" fields are set to 0 by
> the sender and ignored by the receiver.

I'll check with the other authors on that.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:19:08 +0100

> Hi Alexey,
Hi Donald,
> IEEE 802.1 [802.1Q] for control by ITU-T."
I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise there is a question why 
there is no IANA registry for these and your extra sentence would 
address that.
> I'll check with the other authors on that.
Thank you.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:42:03 -0400

Hi Alexey,

These changes have been made a new version -06 has been posted.

Thanks,
Donald

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise there is a question why there
> is no IANA registry for these and your extra sentence would address that.
>
>>> Nits:
>>>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 14:10:56 +1200

Alexey, Donald: Many thanks for the review & the updates!

Jari

On 06 Aug 2014, at 07:42, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art