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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 19, 2022 at 1:58:30 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:


Roman:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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”.

Paul suggested changing the name/registration policy of the range to
"Private and Experimental Use".  Would this new registration policy
address your concern?

If not, please help me out on what you're looking for.



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/bier/bier.xhtml#bier-algorithm) suggest that
> that only 0-127 is an RFC (Standards Action), but 128 – 239 could be either RFC
> or other specification (Specification Required).

Paul made the same comment, but I didn't get it.  I get it now! :-)

Yes, we need to clarify the part about "not specified in a RFC".

Thanks!

Alvaro.