Re: [Bier] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 21 September 2020 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 420F43A1131; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 k2KJ0ddK9-n2; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516BA3A10F9; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id d15so12132975lfq.11; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XWYOUtmEPfYVVjVq15YKkjHdYi7TRFa/oN6BWA1cNyA=; b=ipzBbbkiv42fdt85RaEhh9X5uJdPsLlCWVX4mE6/nSsKrPCTj26cH2e0+mf8zYenW7 9aWM7rhn2dAljquv5EicGX+vMs4BF8sUNXxJF89JlJibzcHcdRvnd2jLCGVJJUX768c1 CAhS2xWTIpGzxnCZr1019UwyyxVPj/ZGe6n2Vn5Y6jezlnZpTO+2/QKiN8RRWMkSqKJa 1CLb50vKk3eM2VkIikdYVUYTnePOEBzbfF015bPK7YkTTZDypEcssnvtZmcWQgwOBiAD TtsjSV2vmRNZBZP0ZbHFJxf6aNROoKX99PCnw4OI67FjdtylHAJz73Bpw5WiUHFuVbOs cqSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XWYOUtmEPfYVVjVq15YKkjHdYi7TRFa/oN6BWA1cNyA=; b=jvd2uGTgttso2l3kXvxKwuXBqIUdbOs2POnAHsxSq2UUa/fXa3K7NY/6xN2XzWKxp0 8So2HYAAu80dy+7kPQK/DlLwc5Y8SKoMY9DaTmgD8/jto9mGjkWbijgq+dfHQ3bVu5qd Uny3kKgqK2cZ1R+4QkFOomjWRvyoRFZWt5vIEVE1/VBhKDjPARy+mbN7P5g0hJBxIbtL VqNalSuD9VijmLe022Y+2o1wlda1FWsSWL5FHn3B5q11r2pcs8ocGiPMX+x7xOoO4ylU wfe7N6ox0omg/ymzYShjDTs/g/E1JZNFjDrd9KkG/RTWAe05Vrppc1TbAxrJVZTOXbvR w14A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531W211tgDXPBXyMJhOP/zEx/CsuQJC6RGHNvTzXE84APM/CtQb/ XloD6RgKLuf6Z9mmPYpTxyoYu9IayR+P8s3Xe+SiQmE1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwr3xFtpbl3rsypDoa/dMLdXH0vuucF4phbyvy+llnhPxf/GHOkZfcWQUL8+hA29vXgN/vbDUNzix6bQ376Mo=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:848d:: with SMTP id g135mr14100110lfd.56.1600650234116; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmVqh0dtkK-8Lai7CEhJ2SGPw2qQnHmpAzC-khgDxj6UpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmVqh0dtkK-8Lai7CEhJ2SGPw2qQnHmpAzC-khgDxj6UpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 18:03:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXOPNYD594QhF8gWqMK-4qdG+B7_YgRvXuYRmEm1=Ek1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa@ietf.org, BIER WG Chairs <bier-chairs@ietf.org>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d3f5305afc86c92"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/6gWKjOnkeFro4MzykS1yA2SKB_A>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 01:04:06 -0000

Hi All,
would like to thank Authors for promptly responding to the IPR poll. The
result - no IPR reported.
Looking forward to your response to my comments and the publication of the
updated version.

Regards,
Greg M (as the Shepherd)

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:56 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear WG Chairs,
> we're waiting for one author to respond to the IPR poll on the draft.
>
> Dear Authors,
> thank you for the well-written document. The proposed solution is elegant
> and presented clearly. I have several comments and questions. Also a number
> of nits that may be worth your attention. First, comments and questions:
>
>    - In Section 2 the requirement to provision BAR and IPA values uses
>    SHOULD:
>
>    For a particular sub-domain, all routers SHOULD be provisioned with
>    and signal the same BAR and IPA values.
>
> Do you think that the MUST is more suitable and would not require a change
> of the text that follows?
>
>
>    - Could the following benefit from the use of the normative language?
>
>    It is expected that both the BAR and IPA values could have both
>    algorithm and constraints semantics.
> From the text that follows, it seems that both semantics are required for
> a router to calculate the underlay path. Is that correct? Also, is there a
> default value of a semantic? If that is the case, it would be helpful to
> state that explicitly.
>
>
>    - There is a pair of requirements in Section 2:
>
>    When a new BAR value is defined, its corresponding BC/BA semantics
>    MUST be specified.  For a new IGP Algorithm to be used as a BIER IPA,
>    its RC/RA semantics MUST also be clear.
> The last sentence can benefit from mode details of what is required to
> make RC/RA semantics clear. Would s/clear/clearly specified/ be acceptable?
>
> Nits:
>
>    - AFAIK, references are not used in an abstract text, instead
>    reference an RFC as text, e.g., "RFC 8444 and RFC 8401".
>    - rules for introducing abbreviations (Section 3.6 RFC 7322
>    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.6>) explain that:
>
>    Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first
>    use in the document.  The full expansion of the text should be
>    followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses.
>
> Several cases, e.g., BAR and IPA, don't follow that rule.
>
>
>    - BFR (Section 2) needs expansion on the first use.
>    - s/a IPA/an IPA/
>    - s/a RCRA/an RCRA/
>    - s/with semantics/ with the semantics/
>    - s/are augmented/is augmented/
>    - s/secuity/security/
>    - s/thanks/thank/
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>