Subject: [trill] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:15:36 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-05: No Objection

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-multi-topology/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The extensions defined in this document are "an optional TRILL switch
capability".  To me, that indicates that the base TRILL specifications rfc6325
and rfc7177 (in this case) are not affected: an RBridge is TRILL-compliant as
long as it implements what rfc6325 specifies (without these optional
extensions).  I would then like to see the formal "Updates" tags removed.

[The publication of this document is not the place to argue about the meaning
of "Updates", so I'll defer to what the Responsible AD decides.]