Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-01.txt

On 05/27/10 23:45, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Although I am not a PPP expert, I think this draft looks pretty good.
> Now that TRILL has been approved as a Proposed Standard,  I think this
> draft should be advanced.
> 
> However, I do have a question on one sentence:
> In Section 3 on Page 4, numbered item 2, the following sentence occurs:
>                If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to
>       pass unencapsulated frames nor to any TRILL-ignorant peer to be
>       concerned about.
> 
> I assume that most of the end of this sentence shouldn't be there...

I think there's just an extra word in the sentence (s/nor to/nor/).  It
reads better as:

	If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to
	pass unencapsulated frames, as the link can have no TRILL-
	ignorant peer to be concerned about.

The point of sending unencapsulated is to make sure that TRILL-ignorant
nodes are able to see the traffic.  But, since this is point-to-point,
we can be certain that "everyone" (i.e., the one guy we're sending to)
knows TRILL.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext