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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Roman:

Hi!

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

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On May 11, 2022 at 4:17:17 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi Roman,

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


Juniper Business Use Only

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

[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
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!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:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U2KKSOJNf6MUTSOAxpFfuY4UsnsdVEYq9h-pZlVjGtJ_XvgyJtSTfAjnJ5qvH-gr$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** 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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
NOT.
The current ranges in that IANA registry (
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/bier/bier.xhtml*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