[Bier] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10
Ines Robles via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 24 August 2021 18:16 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7573A0A4D; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: Ines Robles <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:16:55 -0700
Subject: [Bier] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:16:56 -0000
Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Has Nits Hello, I have been selected as the Routing reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir It would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10 Reviewer: Maria Ines Robles Review Date: 2021-08-24 IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-24 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document describes per-packet stateless strict and loose path steered replication and forwarding for Bit Index Explicit Replication packets (RFC8279), BIER Tree Engineering (BIER-TE), intended to be used as the path steering mechanism for Traffic Engineering with BIER. BIER-TE introduces a new semantic for bit positions (BP) that indicate adjacencies. This document is basically ready for publication. I have some minor questions/comments. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits/Comments/Questions: - Expand SI at first use --> Set Identifier (SI)? - Expand SD at first use --> Sub Domain (SD)? Page 7: Question, in the sentence: "...to send in addition to BFR6 via BFR4 also a copy to BFR3, the BitString needs to be (p2,p5,p8,p10,p12,p13)..." --> should it be added p15 as well, (p2,p5,p8,p10,p12,p13,P15) ? Page 7: " many of which are based on assumptions..." --> it would be nice if you could state examples of the assumptions, which assumptions? Page 8: "BFR4 and from BFR4 to BFR uses (p1,p2,p3,p4,p6). --> BFR4 and from BFR4 to BFR6 uses (p1,p2,p3,p4,p6). Page 8: Question, in Figure 2, You have p6 as forward_routed() to BFR6, and as local_decap. Is this correct? Is this reuse of bit positions case? Page 9: "...undesired duplicates or loops as explained further down in the text." --> (nice to reference the section where it is explained, Section 5.2) Page 10: "See for example See Section 5.1.3...." --> delete the second See Question: Is there specific security considerations when having overlay BIER-TE topology? Thank you for this document, Ines.
- [Bier] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-… Ines Robles via Datatracker