I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.




Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




This draft is written very clear, but I have a few questions:




 




-

         


Mechanism proposed by this draft is to solve the same problem by “draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach”. Are those two mechanisms equally good? Is there any pros and cons comparing those two mechanisms (i.e. the Pseudo name vs. Active-Active
 attachment protocol? 




-

         


The end of the Section 3 has a note on how to reduce the consumption of nicknames. What if CE1 is connected to RB1/RB2, CE2 is connected to RB2/RB3, and CE3 is connected to RB1/RB3, do you need total of 3 Pseudo nicknames for them? Plus
 the original nicknames for RB1, RB2, and RB3, so total of 6 nicknames are needed for this configuration, correct?




 




 




Linda Dunbar