Re: [Bier] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS)

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

I hope -13 revision has taken care of the two points you raised. I forgot to come back to this particular thread to report - sorry for that.

In summary:

For your comment [1], I've updated text as suggested in this thread.
For your comment [2] (why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs):

   When a BAR value is defined, the corresponding BA and BC semantics
   SHOULD be specified.  For an IGP Algorithm to be used as a BIER IPA,
   its RA and RC semantics SHOULD be specified.

   None of the components of the BAR or IPA can be unknown. [...]

Unspecified semantics take the default value NULL (no algorithm or constraints).  The relevant text in -13 are:

   When a BAR value is defined, the corresponding BA and BC semantics
   SHOULD be specified.  For an IGP Algorithm to be used as a BIER IPA,
   its RA and RC semantics SHOULD be specified.  If any of these
   semantics is not specified, it MUST be interpreted as "NULL"
   algorithm or constraint.  For example, the IGP Algorithm 0 defined in
   [RFC8665] is treated as having a NULL RC, i.e., no constraints (see
   Section 3).

Thanks!
Jeffrey


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


On April 18, 2022 at 3:27:27 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On April 18, 2022 at 2:47:15 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:


Paul:

Hi!

Roman's comment helped me understand your point -- sorry for missing it before.


> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > DISCUSS:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > [1]
> > This document could instruct IANA to rename "240-254 Experimental 
> > Use" to
> > "240-254 Private and Experimental Use", since that is what this 
> > document
> > states:
> >
> > If a BAR value is not specified in a RFC but only privately used for 
> > a deployment, it MUST be within the "240-254 Experimental Use" range 
> > of the registry.
...
> > Furthermore, the statement implies there are two different 
> > allocation types here ("RFC" and "privately used"), but the IANA Registry shows 3 types:
> >
> > 0-127 Standards Action
> > 128-239 Specification Required
> > 240-254 Experimental Use
> >
> > The "Specification Required" could be a non-RFC specification.

Yes, we should clarify.

Suggestion>

   If a specification is not available for a specific BAR, its
   value MUST be from the Private and Experimental Use range of
   the registry.


Does that work for you?

Thanks!

Alvaro.