[Bier] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS)

Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 18 April 2022 18:47 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 6FC0C3A1A73; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, gregimirsky@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
Message-ID: <165030763443.2585.7951051000362988637@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:47:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/oF5LPuM-DMQn-R0oXEHES19814I>
Subject: [Bier] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS)
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: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:47:15 -0000

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


This document could instruct IANA to rename "240-254 Experimental Use" to
"240-254 Private and Experimental Use", since that is what this document states:

   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.

Furthermore, the statement implies there are two different allocation types
here ("RFC" and "privately used"), but the IANA Registry shows 3 types:

   0-127        Standards Action
   128-239      Specification Required
   240-254      Experimental Use

The "Specification Required" could be a non-RFC specification.

If this is done, the Abstract should mention the IANA Registry is updated and
the IANA Considerations section should be updated.

   When a BAR value is defined, the corresponding BA and BC semantics
   SHOULD be specified.  For an IGP Algorithm to be used as a BIER IPA,
   its RA and RC semantics SHOULD be specified.

   None of the components of the BAR or IPA can be unknown. [...]

Then why are these SHOULDs not MUSTs?