Re: [Bier] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Greg, et al.

The draft is currently expired. Can the authors refresh then we can move it
to the queue.

- Shep

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:56 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear WG Chairs,
> we're waiting for one author to respond to the IPR poll on the draft.
>
> Dear Authors,
> thank you for the well-written document. The proposed solution is elegant
> and presented clearly. I have several comments and questions. Also a number
> of nits that may be worth your attention. First, comments and questions:
>
>    - In Section 2 the requirement to provision BAR and IPA values uses
>    SHOULD:
>
>    For a particular sub-domain, all routers SHOULD be provisioned with
>    and signal the same BAR and IPA values.
>
> Do you think that the MUST is more suitable and would not require a change
> of the text that follows?
>
>
>    - Could the following benefit from the use of the normative language?
>
>    It is expected that both the BAR and IPA values could have both
>    algorithm and constraints semantics.
> From the text that follows, it seems that both semantics are required for
> a router to calculate the underlay path. Is that correct? Also, is there a
> default value of a semantic? If that is the case, it would be helpful to
> state that explicitly.
>
>
>    - There is a pair of requirements in Section 2:
>
>    When a new BAR value is defined, its corresponding BC/BA semantics
>    MUST be specified.  For a new IGP Algorithm to be used as a BIER IPA,
>    its RC/RA semantics MUST also be clear.
> The last sentence can benefit from mode details of what is required to
> make RC/RA semantics clear. Would s/clear/clearly specified/ be acceptable?
>
> Nits:
>
>    - AFAIK, references are not used in an abstract text, instead
>    reference an RFC as text, e.g., "RFC 8444 and RFC 8401".
>    - rules for introducing abbreviations (Section 3.6 RFC 7322
>    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.6>) explain that:
>
>    Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first
>    use in the document.  The full expansion of the text should be
>    followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses.
>
> Several cases, e.g., BAR and IPA, don't follow that rule.
>
>
>    - BFR (Section 2) needs expansion on the first use.
>    - s/a IPA/an IPA/
>    - s/a RCRA/an RCRA/
>    - s/with semantics/ with the semantics/
>    - s/are augmented/is augmented/
>    - s/secuity/security/
>    - s/thanks/thank/
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
>