[Bier] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10

Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 24 August 2021 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bier@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
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)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-te-arch.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.36.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162982901569.13310.14758392453996094591@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:16:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/o0dzdyjJPBZnz-748ho317IAvqs>
Subject: [Bier] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?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.