[Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 25 August 2021 13:50 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 C36913A0AA4; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, gengxuesong@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.36.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162989945476.29713.12937356180696657837@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:50:54 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/tzde7S8m5AZbkO8j2LDo5hOKPcM>
Subject: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:50:55 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, I would like to please double check with the authors, responsible AD, and IESG that publishing this as standards track is the right choice (as opposed to experimental). >From the first line of the introduction: "BIER-TE is based on architecture, terminology and packet formats with BIER as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. Both RFC 8279 and RFC 8296 are experimental RFCs, hence (1) I wanted to check that by publishing this draft as Std Track, that this draft isn't being built on an unstable footing. This draft has a normative reference to RFC 8279, but only an informative reference to RFC 8296. Hence, I further wanted to check: (2) Should RFC 8296 really be a normative reference? (3) The IETF LC announcement didn't seem to flag the downref to RFC 8279. RFC 8067 says that is not strictly required, but in this case I think that would have been useful. I can see from the document history that the WG has flip-flopped on whether this document should be experimental or stds track, but I couldn't quickly find this discussion, and it wasn't covered in shepherds writeup. If it is possible for someone to provide a quick summary as to why it is okay and right to publish this as standards track that would be appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your work on this document. I'm not an expert on the BIER technology, and I didn't have the time to properly read the core references before reviewing this document. However, I didn't spot any obvious issues on the text, beyond the question on the document status. But I also appreciated the detailed section on the operational considerations related to managing the bit position assignments, which I interpret not as a strict requirement of this specification, but likely to be very helpful to controller implementations and operators. Regards, Rob
- [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Murray S. Kucherawy
- [Bier] RFC status change (was: Re: Robert Wilton'… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Toerless Eckert