IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-02

"Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> Tue, 24 September 2019 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <zzhang@juniper.net>
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 4DBE71200B2 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 zZnqD_49R6fl for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A37120013 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x8OGx3RL005600; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:01:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=hrfW3yLLFsrMg4z/XzTY1EmOlX9tqTeVIpTsOhaFzdk=; b=QOzOLw+gBkBGaLsMqR6iyQs8vn/a1+3Sv2C3/HC/Lj9imgw4R64zb6DARP11dDRxPSFI dSrx3RLiEVyNTjyPZKxYWaYO3/+Fzay71DPqhdlHp858wDJylQxDVTLW3yPgDNBn5VnD B+5D8X/KOzhQzfWgAlG+eljnNEOHUX8MgPEV25MrOe7CDvfNZKb5Mn82NZGr2kJmP/C8 MRWDZQM5sDCSyvpKEmrhW4tNnhxAtDW8ZvV+Y2FiPyCczebkC4Kwmt2BUampDxpSmChx NdDd1GuNN2kMFIUBBE730J6mwM7idAF48CrtKZDTuQkn4xEvk2babTp53uckqaKdcUR+ mQ==
Received: from nam01-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01lp2059.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.59]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2v76mhhkvu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:01:09 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OuQR/TI0gaHDz+grp8BsQq3bYESllWsG9zQ2Szbedg9y8iUuji3PzkTBupD0IjmCKdrA36waC/piHYU0HTWJkp+lKEG4TJ8kKpluopeeKbvcBi6DcpZUp9kUxpo2BDNtCUfSyqvxoXbvo5mX+khqL9xpxTEDgMUZvmTn7NrRlxue7NgBRLBPbsEIPsvmeIW3MG8f/HxJFZJXp2yn7O7zVPSugZENb3qWGobnLI8emWBwF1fphS8QNp2d5eWbncAjcHGA459JwxPDP4FyoS/Ocvi+bRA3qz2LZ5T6KsbFEGF3I+A+mBTbvzSKTjHTs3qQ9H0+wfCyNBHoiHvfBvqugg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hrfW3yLLFsrMg4z/XzTY1EmOlX9tqTeVIpTsOhaFzdk=; b=fH1KNyYcrX2YqWZL5IyLC4HFy+KmkX/WTtLFPQ5ptzmp7m6Ezr6lhLEGLJrxD1pOeFgCA2vdgbj23Mq8TbvbZ3bdrCng9eTcoZwhotMt/pzsL7R+BwngLelDcTvGdFnSNHDx4cvN6WuQRa+w9SnGh/ut/L8LMq6qPXGieJLS0hnyYUl6E5jl808fugZBtMs8dE65M7inGQL8khUZ5PuFkVP27yn+QRXWY3sKq+yh/vcDv/GN2vSDnJE/g5sq1PFxMufSZ3vnkzFne1EiDqvVCUUG21pSGjjqS0/qfYmsPsP7Rmhhb7L/jTkzA+chiJLiZg9AJOyZvFBXsszseVfE1A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
Received: from DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.242.153) by DM5PR05MB3643.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.243.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2305.15; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:01:07 +0000
Received: from DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5a1:b594:9370:96c4]) by DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5a1:b594:9370:96c4%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2284.023; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:01:07 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
To: Chonggang Wang <Chonggang.Wang@InterDigital.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-02
Thread-Index: AdVUWt6XdpKxnOabQwS0gLPp6aCuiAenk4Hg
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:01:06 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR05MB3548B3EACAEFDDE553FD2F9ED4840@DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM6PR10MB26971C60B39828C591842DF3F8AF0@DM6PR10MB2697.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR10MB26971C60B39828C591842DF3F8AF0@DM6PR10MB2697.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.2.0.14
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [173.76.174.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f42e1584-aa0f-4b4c-52f1-08d74110ca92
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR05MB3643:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR05MB36436D452B1EEA76478BC88CD4840@DM5PR05MB3643.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0170DAF08C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(102836004)(9326002)(6116002)(33656002)(110136005)(256004)(446003)(25786009)(52536014)(316002)(76176011)(486006)(6506007)(8936002)(8676002)(26005)(81166006)(81156014)(53546011)(476003)(11346002)(6246003)(186003)(7696005)(54896002)(6306002)(9686003)(229853002)(55016002)(236005)(6436002)(790700001)(71200400001)(99286004)(2906002)(5660300002)(71190400001)(14454004)(74316002)(478600001)(66066001)(66946007)(76116006)(3846002)(966005)(64756008)(66476007)(606006)(66556008)(86362001)(66446008)(7736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3643; H:DM5PR05MB3548.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OptdK9Z8JwytrU/mAcDHw+hw+IhXT65RJtD6BtasLCqiwLXiu1Ue3C9vu2p9qF+7lyIjbNhvDvZ966/2PJglKIrSuTSdAZ488sghXPDQZq9EupoaEdCXBMBS2Zh9o2xrjd/KY/5SgTVrt1n1x2Kz/tm/AUNgjwtKs9z5AUGKWvLOIhLl6mw6oA7+bsrhnBnZsasoYlEEYVs/YFnfOEsIcYgJ6VK2lz8WRAl2nPuokqfBLfOYi9BF4ab412YEJNAnHTfp+Lr/sS9C6Z16dNepzEA8jOzCeaGEczNaLjJeD4ScTRQ4E/jXxNYqPTIxMwr4kZHs/IipJNDVTCI924YYB8uHEZ2Xsr88he6LOAIIeKi5xVKbCmUOFER1zf59nBzznA8WHZql7ePfGhEsbRSo3yGpEHSjqPGd/yFkqRIb3HY=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR05MB3548B3EACAEFDDE553FD2F9ED4840DM5PR05MB3548namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f42e1584-aa0f-4b4c-52f1-08d74110ca92
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Sep 2019 17:01:06.8594 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: YtyCOs3txfPskuPEEwJQKV0lfemgOiHtFXEYnaA6Ms8aU1pbSkFRucVt98/peHYF0rI58Js3ISlieGKzknb7MQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR05MB3643
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-09-24_07:2019-09-23,2019-09-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1909240150
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/6fZZOwvSQ97ww9uA4J4hZvL6pWM>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-02
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Sep 2019 17:01:15 -0000

Hi Chonggang,

Thank you so much for your thorough review, suggestions and insightful questions.

I have posted the -03 revision that addresses all your comments. In particular, I removed the section 4.1 approach so we only signal from the helper node now.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-bier-tether-03

Jeffrey

From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Chonggang Wang
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 1:52 PM
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Subject: [Bier] Comments on draft-zzhang-bier-tether-02

Hi,

We have reviewed draft-zzhang-bier-tether-02 and would like to provide the following feedback:

  1.  Overall, it is short and nice draft.
  2.  General: Suggest adding a title for each figure and cite these figures properly
  3.  Editorial: "BIER-incapable" is used in the title while "BIER incapable" in used in description. Suggest making them consistent.
  4.  Editorial: "Section 6.9" appears in multiple places. Suggest adding [RFC8279] as its reference at each place for avoiding potential confusion.
  5.  Editorial in Section 1: suggest defining the term "tethering"
  6.  Editorial in Section 2:
     *   replace the first "IGP" with "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)"?
     *   replace the first "SPF" with "Shortest Path First (SPF)"?
     *   replace "This need" with "This needs"?
     *   replace "incapable routers" with "BIER-incapable routers"?
     *   replace "rely on" with "relying on"?
  7.  Editorial in Section 3:
     *   replace "is no different" with "is not different"?
     *   replace the first "LFA" with "Loop-Free Alternate (LFA)"?

  *   Editorial in Section 2-3: BFER1 and/or BFIR1 are used in all figures. Should they all be changed to BFIR1?
  *   Section 4.1 & 4.2: Two solutions are described in 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. Is it possible and if there is any implication of X uses the solution in 4.1 and BFRx uses the solution in 4.2 at the same time?  If both solutions are alternative and only one solution needs to be implemented in practice, the question is whether this draft needs to describe which solution will be used under which condition.

Thanks,
CG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email