Re: [Bier] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 02 June 2022 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB43C14F692; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 09:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-OaJ-3rQkCl; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 09:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3BFC14F74A; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 09:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p5-20020a1c2905000000b003970dd5404dso3026531wmp.0; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 09:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w6PALRBYV/QA1kO5BOPdNRZNJUH0tgC6AmVGPmxKz1s=; b=i4CLhC8sQIEbz1l0y/VGzRNz6wdteqdn04sXtiM0S4mZwjK2VqRCN9uGWxrRoC4wWN qUf8qSesWHYe+29xP8YtN0QwWTFvStDeI0WAB72nDow2AtgOyjLpQdJ/db+L6P40jeu6 0dR8LCn4Z2jcSTp7/Vkq4qT8mDX9SumrTw3B0JOeSO2FmblRZgM+k43T5Ts4nf4LgsRV o1UvvwG4u2aGZmUCK5UvXfJNRopAkbJP8FFL18Oq/e854Sx9WMKwBaiwVkzW08Zqg0n5 ZFp3ftCcOr1Uq/Ax0sEX1N5CQ+XpLRWy6reztV+aUOMY+1u4MkcNST/6XuZtm6+ZBmeI 99sg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w6PALRBYV/QA1kO5BOPdNRZNJUH0tgC6AmVGPmxKz1s=; b=7tKHcBcQTDzOD56LaOtN80inJqDr+RJywsbIXN+5YvrZ9jsdoKT+Ls/uxg69n+u+5T sbZTI/TFtbC55Mb5+KjfYpjTmAiSrwQ3oOoFN6MHIXE+5140bgJVvVWK4yya3YBz8XAj Vsd+z5BStp1l0PFV1kESbi9jKEuuKz9EwPdGnol6iplL2jnnEr/rCl8kyQuvlebohEFh C9hB6A/CWnxww1GGZJLzgjF3P3rOtUNRJ3RQd1TphpYUC/z1dvmVE8c9kjJU85H/L/b9 ZxLdytytoh6NoDUdJC+4cunEMTg/+6hoN783SADsLQvKd21j4OBqX9yVJmZSJ8vzL7y5 +9Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Cx8rJLvAx6hRHNV5m6JZSqJcEFlEqTNAyvWUB9io3v+mGvPQk iMD8QLBuRUT3F3MIXS33m/zkY93nWBDqGPmeXo4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhb1slQAaIe1Fr4LEbgPB8vd8l/a/UW24iXslLbqAiPPreQu04nns2r2VRm4Cq4vVlz8o5SXmXooUFwAuv8uA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3496:b0:39c:1c19:987d with SMTP id a22-20020a05600c349600b0039c1c19987dmr4629828wmq.135.1654186102736; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 09:08:22 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 09:08:22 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Roman Danyliw <>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>
Cc: "" <>, Greg Mirsky <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000bce2005e0793737"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 16:08:28 -0000



Can you please take a look at -13?   Does the change address your DISCUSS?



On May 11, 2022 at 4:17:17 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang (

Hi Roman,

Sorry for the late response. I took some time off and was catching up
Please see zzh> below.

Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 1:58 PM
To: The IESG <>
Greg Mirsky <>;;
Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U2KKSOJNf6MUTSOAxpFfuY4UsnsdVEYq9h-pZlVjGtJ_XvgyJtSTfAjnJ_l-o0fn$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U2KKSOJNf6MUTSOAxpFfuY4UsnsdVEYq9h-pZlVjGtJ_XvgyJtSTfAjnJ5qvH-gr$


** Section 2.

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.

If this document is redefining “experimental use” to be “privately used for
a deployment” please provide the appropriate applicability statement that
bounds this “deployment”.

Zzh> The intention is that if a deployment uses a BAR value that is not
covered in a specification, then it must be from that range. Based on the
suggestions I've updated the text as the following:

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


Thank you to Vincent Roca for the SECDIR review.

** Section 2. I support Paul Wouter’s DISCUSS on his concerns on:

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.

This text suggests that BAR values will be either published in an RFC or
The current ranges in that IANA registry (*bier-algorithm__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U2KKSOJNf6MUTSOAxpFfuY4UsnsdVEYq9h-pZlVjGtJ_XvgyJtSTfAjnJ_WxfsG1$
) suggest that that only 0-127 is an RFC (Standards Action), but 128 – 239
could be either RFC or other specification (Specification Required).

Zzh> Please see the above new text.

** Section 2.

The definition for the BAR and IPA fields in [RFC8401] and [RFC8444]
are updated as follows.

Please be specific on which text is being modified – Section 6.1 of RFC8401
and Section 2.1 of RFC8444.

Zzh> Yes it will be fixed in the new revision.
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey