Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

Tony Przygienda <> Fri, 21 July 2017 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDA2131BFC; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0H9H7ZJgTSGG; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77E0131B69; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w191so7027865wmw.1; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MocJks5CHN/PHhTN1BBkAcDu+uIsSLz3C4mLl0hin4I=; b=TYya9th0pOCxKuuRNwJ6fK+Nbh/Lx2g8qVxNhWtTz0mIZjcsbBVafbLuzjrywHYmQD 1HJaNVaqBXw85LIVUlqhPI2sx3o9ZuUCgfU9DRYv3Jhiuj+dWNLGt60SGzJnkZkYRSmD ebLIGoeSQRtiSqsPIQagSaS50fl5o14dMMPPGBIShB1usaX5kz8u/eyfD8ifAn/97601 oRS8D6EBqhUfs/p1hztGyHMTL2T2dbmD+XEjoR0Od9YznC/Cxq0wXaALqbT17C/cKYER /ua+uXuT7ta5A73tb02JqVljsnG89RIa7oBNBJ0E3zv4CrJ+ljyn0JHBaSnhpSiIDyyk lFRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MocJks5CHN/PHhTN1BBkAcDu+uIsSLz3C4mLl0hin4I=; b=eJUgQIQA09d4x388sq0jl6riDWnpYaPlEGvUW+kVKEMacdGH/36ZUTZJWEu2cge5Nq 1pqqDhVHTDGl7UzbHJxmYzBJ1wiIT5dE9kXtY4+pxwRSJDH7NNWDKmIIsPVNp7l/bhQ3 fOAHtQ4meZ0KIQsf7iDoskl5EkUH/4HwOzKbHi1RcWOf+aky/CqurH5Ybbg/QYtzLIdj d8mLvcs2Tmlq2lXPhhO6YrY4b6liOgJHnnQraRrK3+FML3oYJ7RYDgihXWyiC5vhD1Bc XFoeByABN5h2kW+2Ir90pH45EBLL5AdegGVZa99xzcdpnzr9l6HVedv0S9QiSmsEQ/M+ fDoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113MpTgzvoc79mOZVAhGFb1sbmSNGrvrMJ/pfFSkt14ACG363DVk dvFTzivkRzMKcn+vOCPvrSGNgx6DKg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 92mr5742363edy.68.1500639483360; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Tony Przygienda <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:17:23 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>
Cc: Greg Shepherd <>, "Hannes Gredler (" <>, "" <>, " list" <>, Christian Hopps <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1959fc577d6c0554d2db8e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:18:07 -0000

Terminology is a bit nits  IMO since the doc is reading clear enough for
someone who read BIER & ISIS. I can reread it or Les can comment whether we
should tighten glossary ...

With the scope I agree, that got lost and the doc should be possibly rev'ed
before closing LC. Yes, we flood AD wide was the agreement but something
mentioning that this could change in the future is good so we are forced to
give it some thought how that would transition ...

Thinking further though, in ISIS we have a clean document really. The  BIER
sub-TLVs go into well defined TLVs in terms of flooding scope. Normal L1-L2
redistribution can be used to get the info to all needed places AFAIS. So
maybe nothing needs to be written. I wait for Les to chime in.

OSPF I would have to look @ scopes again & think whether we need to write
something or maybe Peter can comment ...

--- tony

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:

> Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully  benign textual comments:
> We tried to find an explicit statement about the scope of BIER TLVs - eg:
> are they meant to stay within an area, have some redistribution across
> areas/levels or not.
> Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV be flooded across the whole
> ISIS domain for now (this draft). So an explicit statement to that effect
> would
> be great (All BIER sub-domains TLVs are flooded across all ISIS
> areas/levels,                     so they span the whole ISIS domain).
> Also, if future work may/should could improve on that maybe some sentence
> about that (i guess one could just have ISIS intra-area BIER sub-domains
> ?).
> Also: Do a check about possible ambiguity of any generic terms like
>                        sub-domain, level, area, topology so that reader
> that don't know the terminology ofall protocols (ISIS, BIER) by heart can
> easily know which protocol is referred to.
> I guess there are no BIER level, area or topologies, but still makes
> reading easier if the
> doc would say "ISIS level", "ISIS area", or at least have them in the
> Terminology section. And probably in terminology say "domain -> in the
> context
> of this document the BIER domain which is also the same as the ISIS domain"
> (which i hope is the correct statement, see above).
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list

*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky