This document has some issues that need to be corrected before it can
pass an IESG last call.
In order of importance:
1) The document equates Ethernet with IEEE 802 and this is clearly
incorrect, since IEEE 802 includes also technologies like Token Ring,
DQDB, Wireless that are clearly outside the scope of TRILL. Ethernet
must be equated with IEEE 802.3
2) The document discusses Spanning Tree compatibility in section 1.2
where it claims that BPDUs must be terminated and in Section 4.1 where
the term "block" is used. This is clearly in contrast with what
discussed in the WG and in the base protocol spec, where BPDUs are at
least processed (in one proposal) or even sourced by RBridges (in an
3) Section 1.1 Terminology is formally incorrect since [TARCH] is not an
approved document. It is also substantially incorrect since many terms
listed are not used in this document and some are not agreed in the WG.
I propose to eliminate this section.
4) The document uses the term "will" that is not compliant with RFC2119.
In general a better definition of what is mandatory and what is optional
is important in a requirement document.
5) Introduction - Bridging limitation. The first paragraph refers to
Ethernet networks used without Spanning Tree. This is irrelevant, since
Spanning Tree is always deployed in conjunction with Ethernet. The
correct contrast must be between Ethernet with Spanning Tree and
Ethernet with TRILL. The claim of a single broadcast/flooding domain is
incorrect since VLANs have solved this issue many years ago.
-- Silvano Gai
Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: [rbridge] Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL
RoutingRequirements in Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges '
<draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2007-03-30. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
IESG discussion can be tracked via
rbridge mailing list
Ietf mailing list