IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>

Senthil Dhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj@huawei.com> Tue, 03 October 2017 11:15 UTC

Return-Path: <senthil.dhanaraj@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238D1134588 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 04:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DuAniCAH_N94 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9827134306 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 04:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DWT25165; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:15:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:15:29 +0100
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.183]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:45:21 +0530
From: Senthil Dhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj@huawei.com>
To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>
CC: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>
Thread-Index: AQHTLLyHVEv6nUtauU+iLn6tYmxKKqLSFmkA
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:15:20 +0000
Message-ID: <9778B23E32FB2745BEA3BE037F185DC4A5B7A21A@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CABFReBpXnEr1eF18aLw6YB5Jq2XN9bN4oiA+1aJEUpDo7UFKMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBpXnEr1eF18aLw6YB5Jq2XN9bN4oiA+1aJEUpDo7UFKMw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.56]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9778B23E32FB2745BEA3BE037F185DC4A5B7A21ABLREML503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.59D37154.0031, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.9.183, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: dc0c7bfd7354206dca16f60b3fb142ad
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/-GtchkWBRc7eWyuqnTkOR4iW-Fw>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:15:37 -0000

A minor comment .

3.  Encoding BFR Identifiers in BitStrings

   It is not required that a BFIR use the same Imposition
   BitStringLength or the same Imposition sub-domain for all packets on
   which it imposes the BIER encapsulation.  However, if a particular
   BFIR is provisioned to use a particular Imposition BitStringLength
   and a particular Imposition sub-domain when imposing the
   encapsulation on a given set of packets, all other BFRs with BFR-ids
   in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned to process received BIER
   packets with that BitStringLength (i.e., all other BFRs with BFR-ids
   in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned with that BitStringLength as
   a Disposition BitStringLength for that sub-domain.  Exceptions to
   this rule MAY be made under certain conditions; this is discussed in
   Section 6.10.

Note: Further the same text is referred in section 6.10


>  I assume “BFRs with BFR-ids” implies only BFERs and not the transit BFRs.
    We shall remove the text “with BFR-ids” and just mention as BFRs ?

Regards,
Senthil



From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: 13 September 2017 23:45
To: bier@ietf.org
Subject: [Bier] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>

WGLC timer starting for draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt

Removed 256bit mask minimum limit, with the intention of letting encapsulation drafts specify minimum length.

Also added an Operational Consideration section.

Thanks,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DraftTracker Mail System <iesg-secretary@ietf.org<mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
Date: Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:02 AM
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org<mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Cc: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>, akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>



Last Call Request has been submitted for
<draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-architecture/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email