Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​ http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-trill-irb Reviewer: Hannes Gredler Review Date: 20-May-2015 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication. I'd have used the term "anycast MAC" for the L3-gw address, then it becomes obvious that more than one Rbridge is advertising the same "virtual L3-gw" MAC address. Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability. The draft is very readable by use of the numerous examples and illustrations. Enough substance for proper implementations. Personal comments to IESG and routing-ADs (sorry i could not resist) The IETF has to think hard wether it wants to double invent its protocols. IMO the following combo: 1) Control-plane : L2 IS-IS 2) Encapsulation/TTL protection : Trill 3) Label-Stacking: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7172 4) Routing: Distributed L3 gateway (this document) does solve the very same problem as this combo: 1) Control-Plane: L3 IS-IS + SPRING, L3VPN 2) Encapsulation/TTL protection: MPLS 3) Label-Stacking: MPLS 4) Routing: vanilla L3 host-routing thanks, /hannes