[Bier] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 2.

   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.

If this document is redefining “experimental use” to be “privately used for a
deployment” please provide the appropriate applicability statement that bounds
this “deployment”.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Vincent Roca for the SECDIR review.

** Section 2.  I support Paul Wouter’s DISCUSS on his concerns on:

   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.

This text suggests that BAR values will be either published in an RFC or NOT. 
The current ranges in that IANA registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/bier/bier.xhtml#bier-algorithm) suggest that
that only 0-127 is an RFC (Standards Action), but 128 – 239 could be either RFC
or other specification (Specification Required).

** Section 2.

The definition for the BAR and IPA fields in [RFC8401] and [RFC8444]
   are updated as follows.

 Please be specific on which text is being modified – Section 6.1 of RFC8401
 and Section 2.1 of RFC8444.