Re: [Bier] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

Mirja, in fact, a good observation. My take would be

1) Reference to 3032 is good. Limited to IP frames in BIER frames obviously
2) For non-IP frames BIER faces the same challenges as MPLS or SPRING or
any other technology where the L2(.5) encaps is non-neglectible. Not better
or worse for that manner. Issue started with PPoE ;-)  and if one doesn't
do MTU discovery and adjusts accordingly, not much beside OAM unreachables
can be done for things like L2 frames.
3) Generally,
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/bier/draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery/ is
available and allows efficient multicast MTU discovery. I don't think a
reference is needed in this draft since it's not really encapsulation
related.
4) Morever, extensive PING document is available for out-of-band or in-band
continuity check in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-ping-02 .
Again, I don't think it needs referencing in this document

As to BSL bits, more bits are always nice and we may have future versions
of BIER encaps to go ...

--- tony

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding is that this document specifies a new encapsulation. As
> such
> it should also discuss path MTU discovery and fragmentation. Maybe a
> pointer to
> section 3 of rfc3032 is sufficient.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nit:
> Given that the BSL can only ever have 7 values, I'm wondering why 4
> instead of
> 3 bits are used, but that's not important...
>
>
>