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 alternate proposal). 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rbridge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:53 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: rbridge@xxxxxxxxxx > 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 of > 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 the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-03-30. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag= 15 > 187&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@xxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf