[rbridge] draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-01.txt

[Gray, Eric]

Donald,

	The following is the disposition with respect to your 
comments on the Routing Requirements draft.  I have made 
other - relatively minor - changes to this draft and will
be submitting it to the Internet Drafts site shortly.


	Replace "R-Bridge" with "RBridge".

		DONE

      Page 7, 2nd paragraph before section 4, delete redundant 
	"(the endnode information)".

		DONE

	Page 7, section 4.1, 1st line, insert "parts of" between 
	"within" and "the".

		DONE

	Page 8, section 4.2, 2nd line, insert "known" between 
	"each" and "L2".

		DONE

	Page 8, section 4.3, last line, replace "interactions with 
	bridges" with "interactions between routers and bridges".

	As a general comment, this draft spends more time than it 
	needs to on co-located routers and RBridges. It's okay to 
	mention that as it makes particularly clear the need to be 
	able to distinguish routing protocol messages used for 
	routing and for RBridge interaction but I'm not the sort 
	of co-location needs to be mentioned so much.

		? - there are a total of 4 instances of use of the 
		word "co-located" (or "colocated" as it was before)
		and - of those - one could be removed without loss
		of information.  However, that one instance serves 
		as a parenthetical reminder in the sentence:

		"there may be specific requirements imposed on the
		interactions [...] between RBridge instances and
		(potentially co-located) IP routing instances."

		It's parenthetical, I think it adds value, and it
		is a single (extra) instance that could hardly be
		thought to wear out the expression.

		However, if other people feel that it doesn't add
		value, I will be happy to take it out.
 

--- [SNIP] ---