Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:58:30 -0400

This is a QA review, intended to provide an additional perspective, 
requested by the TRIL chairs and Routing ADs.
The reviewer understands that the WG last call has completed, and hopes 
that this review will prove helpful to the working group.
[For clarity, the above is written before performing the review.]

This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major: N/A

Minor: N/A

Nits:
     Section 2.2 base has two bullet items.  the first appears to be a 
subset of the second.  Is this deliberate?

     The counter-example at the end of the second paragraph of section 
2.4 seems to be missing some limitation that would explain it.  (It is 
possible this is more obvious to a reader who is more conversant with 
TRILL, but there does seem to be something missing.)

Editorial:
     In section 10.4 defining the FGL-VLAN Mapping Bitmap APPsub-TLV, 
the diagram calls the fifth field "Starting FGL".  The text below that 
refers to it the field simply as "FGL".  I believe the text should also 
name it "Starting FGL".

Side note: I really appreciate the thorough additional explanations as 
to the reasons various actions are safe or unsafe.  Thank you.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern