Re: [Bier] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Just a short clarification on one point (or two).

See in text.

Regards,

Dan



> 3. On the other hand I am missing the relationship with other work items in the
>> BIER charter - there is no manageability section for example, there is no
>> reference to the performance impact in networks. Maybe these are dealt with in
>> a different document or documents or BIER, if so it would be good at least to
>> mention and reference these here.
>>
>>
>> There is no requirement to include a manageability section.
>>
>> I believe there is ongoing work having to do with Operations and
>> Management of BIER, but as that does not help to understand the
>> architecture (or forwarding procedures), I don't think it would be
>> appropriate to reference that work.
>>
>
> Yes, OAM is in charter & document for it exists. I see nothing wrong with
> referencing it but I don't think it needs a manageability section.
>
>
>>
>> 5. Sections 3 to 6 mentioned repeatedly provisioning. As there is no Operations
>> and Manageability section as in many other Routing Area documents, it is not
>> clear how this is expected to happen.
>>
>>
>> How OAM is "expected to happen" would be outside the scope of this
>> document.
>>
>
> The "provisioning" language is unfortunate. We could (and maybe should)
> replace it simply with "MUST support" rather than "be able to be
> provisioned" and be done. Whether it's a controller, IGP signalling or
> anything else is irrelevant to BIER architecture.
>
>

Please make a distinction between Operations and Management, and OAM
(Operations, Administration, Maintenance) as per RFC 6291. OAM is just one
of the aspects of Operations and Management.

While a dedicated section on Operations and Manageability considerations is
not mandatory, it is part of many documents in the Routing Area. I hold the
opinion that from operators perspective operational and manageability
aspects are core and should be dealt with in architecture and protocol
documents. Of course, as Gen-ART comments are written for the benefit of
the IESG and especially for the IETF chair, it's up to them to consider or
discard these comments. Note also that I marked them as 'minor' so they are
not show-stoppers IMO.

Regards,