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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 12 February 2018 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A350120727; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:58:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3A5WNs6I59FC; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 834CB12D574; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:58:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=39666; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518451132; x=1519660732; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ZLHDMCMjVjeYGR0C97icT4Emp13p7pyxf5h5TNhQivQ=; b=WSuJxI57JbK5aKxSNNv+TdnSDYK6OwfgvQcoT96OdfD+Vh49HETTAQ6f FvCBTdkSeduq2+tuWef0xtSnsmolk05/CCfTgg+sjAIPbolhKeJAraaAp UMNohZzpKKGZgJs4PpMtx2qzvW7II9hz5fmOBa6apk0i7rAKjV2lxYXa7 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DuAADfuIFa/5tdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNSZnAoCoNbd4ktjiSBWyeBF4d/jkIVggMKGAuFGAIagjNUGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQEBAmsohSMBAQEEAQEhBA06CwwEAgEIEQEDAQEBAgIjAwICAh8GCxQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?gYIAgQBDQWKHQMVEK0ygW06hzsNgTGCDQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARg?= =?us-ascii?q?FgQ+DbYIVgz4BKQyBa4EOgmtEAQGBSgEOGAcQDxICgl0xgjQFmXGKCDUJAowmh?= =?us-ascii?q?FKFCoIfhiqEGYdiixSDNokhAhEZAYE7AR85gVBwFT0qAYIbglUcggZ4ijIBASU?= =?us-ascii?q?HgQaBFwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,501,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="355097992"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2018 15:58:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1CFwoDo008305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:58:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:58:49 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:58:49 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
CC: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at)" <hannes@gredler.at>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Thread-Index: AQHTodrQmhxalf8idEecM+y86cU2hqOhNBkA//+87oA=
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:58:49 +0000
Message-ID: <69EEC1F9-3077-4260-BB7A-66F0AEB3357D@cisco.com>
References: <20170721062741.GA3215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+wi2hOCZkLeuqnqr-waNMtaex+Pjq3rXzH-HVqJhLkWQUgj_Q@mail.gmail.com> <567fdbe4992c4207b54c77b1ec8cd0cd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20170722133419.GA18218@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <37e324dc58454778b70c72255066536f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <20170725195211.GA7411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CABFReBpt088=SC3eBcfFbJ24e_+GkDmvKh05AaQtUmCoaKEG3w@mail.gmail.com> <cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4ed@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNOf=UZja29OVDGWJMvULoyJP7Uj_OnZYVakNiX0-59Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcZnZmbfU3AnLgfCJmOz-dJ0uv8VUZE+BQ9Qq3B=7DgZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNrQV+gyQS_ts-38w2OWYOkTXUy-Q3b0FAGKaztE8D+QQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoWZeQxnOCERr9EVykE5dY8p04KQT=JsDqk2eN2Q9p_2g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hPtxa_Z7VS6Hnj5Y4iQG3RUx7GP6exkf9o4ZcQr2eU_ig@mail.gmail.com> <5A81ABAC.107@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A81ABAC.107@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8DFBC9A51E96694FB1B57350F2EC92CE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/O7hY39UB2NKmdV7wWIGpKeoRiAk>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:58:55 -0000

With respect to the text in section 5.2, I agree with Peter.

Thanks
Acee 

On 2/12/18, 9:59 AM, "BIER on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <bier-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

    Hi Tony,
    
    OSPF does not have the original text, so it does not need the new one.
    
    IMHO, the text in section 5 of ISIS BIER draft suits better to the BIER 
    architecture draft than to the IGP extension draft.
    
    thanks,
    Peter
    
    
    On 09/02/18 20:17 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
    > Sure ;-)  let me ping Peter @ the bottom then ... I don't think any of
    > the stuff applies to OSPF (was ISIS nits) except we can consider an
    > encaps paragraph. We basically suggest both to replace in ISIS the
    > encaps section like this
    >
    > before:
    >
    > "
    >     All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the
    >     same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>.  A router discovering
    >     encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a
    >     misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>.  All received BIER
    >     advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be
    >     ignored.
    >
    > "
    >
    > now
    >
    > "
    >
    >     Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported for a given
    >     <MT,SD>.  Clearly, however, there MUST be at least one encapsulation
    >     type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated packet to be
    >     successfully forwarded between two BFRs.
    >
    > "
    >
    > I do think that OSPF would benefit from adding this section to clarify
    > the issue which is not theoretical now that we have Ethernet.
    >
    >
    > So Peter, any ETA on outstanding OSPF nits now that we're tying up the
    > IETF LC?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > --- tony
    >
    >
    > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com
    > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >     No I didn't. Why would I? These are the changes you and Les worked
    >     out. I assumed you'd share them as needed. If for some reason you're
    >     uncomfortable engaging with the OSPF draft thread and authors with
    >     your proposed changes, let me know and I'll broker the conversation.
    >
    >     Greg
    >
    >     On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Tony Przygienda
    >     <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >         Les has the diff, I'd expect him to publish any minute to the
    >         list ... The encaps was a real defect, the rest is just
    >         tightening down the language/spec where it was too loose/too
    >         strict.
    >
    >         OSPF still needs update with conversion TLV removed, same
    >         paragraph on encaps could be useful. I hope Greg pinged Peter ...
    >
    >         thanks
    >
    >         tony
    >
    >         On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com
    >         <mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >             On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
    >             <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >                 Went last nits with Les, we found one issue (encaps
    >                 section was wrong, need to look @ OSPF as well) and
    >                 basically tightened language in few places.
    >
    >
    >             K - please get that  out with the details of changes to the
    >             list.  I did my AD review back in Oct and looked at the
    >             differences before issuing
    >             IETF Last Call.
    >
    >             I look forward to reviewing the minor changes.
    >
    >             Regards,
    >             Alia
    >
    >                 tony
    >
    >                 On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd
    >                 <gjshep@gmail.com <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >                     Thanks Les.
    >
    >                     Any other feedback? Looks like the concerns have
    >                     been addressed. Speak now.
    >
    >                     Cheers,
    >                     Greg
    >
    >                     On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les Ginsberg
    >                     (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com
    >                     <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote:
    >
    >                         Greg –____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         This thread is outdated.____
    >
    >                         In V6 of the draft we removed the restriction to
    >                         limit IS-IS BIER support to area boundaries – so
    >                         Toerless’s comment (and my proposed text) are no
    >                         longer relevant.____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Specifically:____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Section 4.1:____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         “At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER
    >                         domain/sub-domain is ____
    >
    >                                             limited to a single area -
    >                         or to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain.”____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         The above text was removed.____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Section 4.2____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a
    >                         prefix reachability____
    >
    >                                advertisement is leaked between levels.____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Was changed to____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix
    >                         reachability____
    >
    >                                advertisement is leaked between levels.____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts in this
    >                         regard.____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                              Les____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         *From:*Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com
    >                         <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>]
    >                         *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM
    >                         *To:* Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de
    >                         <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>
    >                         *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    >                         <ginsberg@cisco.com
    >                         <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
    >                         <tonysietf@gmail.com
    >                         <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>; Hannes Gredler
    >                         (hannes@gredler.at <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>)
    >                         <hannes@gredler.at <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>>;
    >                         bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
    >                         isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list
    >                         <isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>;
    >                         Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org
    >                         <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>
    >
    >
    >                         *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC:
    >                         draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Have these changes been reflected in the draft?
    >                         We're in WGLC but this discussion needs to come
    >                         to a conclusion so we can progress. ____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         Greg____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >                         On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Toerless
    >                         Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>
    >                         wrote:____
    >
    >                             Thanks, Less, that would be lovely!
    >
    >                             I didn't check the OSPF draft, if its
    >                             similar state, explanatory text wold equally
    >                             be appreciated.____
    >
    >
    >                             On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:28:08PM +0000,
    >                             Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
    >                              > Toerless -
    >                              >
    >                              > I am thinking to add a statement in
    >                             Section 4.1 - something like:
    >                              >
    >                              > "At present, IS-IS support for a given
    >                             BIER domain/sub-domain is limited to a
    >                             single area - or to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain."
    >                              >
    >                              > If you believe this would be helpful I
    >                             will spin a new version (subject to
    >                             review/agreement from my co-authors).
    >                              >
    >                              >    Les
    >                              >
    >                              >
    >                              > > -----Original Message-----
    >                              > > From: Toerless Eckert
    >                             [mailto:tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>]
    >                              > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM
    >                              > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    >                              > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler
    >                             (hannes@gredler.at
    >                             <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
    >                              > > bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
    >                             isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
    >                             list; Christian Hopps
    >                              > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
    >                             draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
    >                              > >
    >                              > > Thanks Les
    >                              > >
    >                              > > When searching various terms in the doc
    >                             to figure out what happens i am not
    >                              > > sure why i missed this one.
    >                              > >
    >                              > > But: IMHO, RFCs can not only be the
    >                             minimum number of words to get a
    >                              > > running implementation. It also needs
    >                             to specify what this implementation
    >                              > > intends to achieve. Otherwise its not
    >                             possible to do a useful review:
    >                              > > The reviewer can to verify whether the
    >                             spec will achieve what it claims to
    >                              > > achieve is there no definitionn of what
    >                             it claims to achieve.
    >                              > >
    >                              > > If i understand ISIS correctly, my
    >                             reverse engineering of the intent is:
    >                              > >
    >                              > > - BIER TLVs stay within single ISIS
    >                             areas. BFIR and BFER must therefore be
    >                              > >   in the same ISIS area: There is no
    >                             inter-area BIER traffic possible
    >                              > >   with this specification. This is also
    >                             true for ISIS area 0.
    >                              > >
    >                              > > - The same BIER sub-domain identifiers
    >                             can be re-used
    >                              > >   across different ISIS areas without
    >                             any current impact. If these BFR-IDs
    >                              > >   are non-overlapping, then this would
    >                             allow in the future to create a single
    >                              > >   cross ISIS area BIER sub-domain by
    >                             leaking TLVs for such a BIER sub-domain
    >                              > >   across ISIS levels. Leakage is
    >                             outside the scope of this specificication.
    >                              > >
    >                              > > I actually even would like to do the
    >                             following:
    >                              > >
    >                              > > - If BIER sub-domains are made to span
    >                             multiple ISIS areas and BFR-ids
    >                              > > assignemtns
    >                              > >   are made such that all BFR-ids with
    >                             the same SI are in the same ISIS ara,
    >                              > >   then it should be in the future
    >                             reasonably easy to create inter-area BIER
    >                              > >   not by leaking of the BIER TLV but by
    >                             having BFIR MPLS unicastBIER packets
    >                              > >   for different SIs to an appropriate
    >                             L2L1 BFIR that is part of the destination
    >                              > > area/SI.
    >                              > >   (if you would use SI number that are
    >                             the same as ISIS area numbers then
    >                              > >    you could probably do this without
    >                             any new signaling. Not quite sure if
    >                              > >    you can today easily find L1L2
    >                             border router for another area via existing
    >                              > >    TLVs).
    >                              > >
    >                              > >   Alas, this idea will probably be
    >                             killed because of the BIER architecture
    >                              > >   intent not to engineer SI assignments
    >                             in geographical fashions to
    >                              > >   minimize traffic duplication in the
    >                             presence of multiple SIs.
    >                              > >
    >                              > > Cheers
    >                              > >     Toerless
    >                              > >
    >                              > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:03:53AM
    >                             +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
    >                              > > > Tony/Toerless ???
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > There is an explicit statement as to
    >                             scope:
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > <snip>
    >                              > > > Section 4.2
    >                              > > > ???
    >                              > > >    o  BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be
    >                             included when a prefix reachability
    >                              > > >       advertisement is leaked between
    >                             levels.
    >                              > > > <end snip>
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > Tony seems to have forgotten that we
    >                             had a discussion about how BIER
    >                              > > might be supported across areas and the
    >                             conclusion was we did not know
    >                              > > how to do that yet.
    >                              > > > (Sorry Tony)
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > Note this is ???consistent??? with
    >                             https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-
    >                             <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier->
    >                              > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section
    >                             2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
    >                             <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf->
    >                              > >
    >                             bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5>
    >                             - which limits the
    >                              > > flooding scope of BIER information to a
    >                             single area unless it can be validated
    >                              > > that the best path to the prefix with
    >                             BIER info can be validated to be to a
    >                              > > router which itself advertised the BIER
    >                             info. This is not something IS-IS can do
    >                              > > since a single IS-IS instance only
    >                             supports one area and therefore does not
    >                              > > have the Level-1 advertisements of the
    >                             originating router when that router is
    >                              > > in another area.
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > A few more responses inline.
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > From: BIER
    >                             [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org
    >                             <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of
    >                             Tony Przygienda
    >                              > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM
    >                              > > > To: Toerless Eckert
    >                              > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at
    >                             <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
    >                             bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
    >                              > > > isis-wg@ietf.org
    >                             <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list; Christian Hopps
    >                              > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
    >                             draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > 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
    >                              > > <tte@cs.fau.de
    >                             <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de><mailto:tte@cs.fau.de
    >                             <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>> 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.
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > [Les:] There is no mention of
    >                             ???level??? in the document.
    >                              > > > The use of ???sub-domain??? is
    >                             clearly always associated with ???BIER???.
    >                              > > > ???topology??? is always used as an
    >                             RFC 5120 topology ??? therefore
    >                              > > clearly an IS-IS topology.
    >                              > > > There is only one use of the term
    >                             ???area??? (in Section 5.1). That text
    >                              > > might deserve a bit of clarification
    >                             given this might be either a Level 1 area or
    >                              > > the Level2 sub-domain. I???ll take a
    >                             pass at it.
    >                              > > > (BTW ??? I am talking about IS-IS
    >                             area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???)
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > I don???t see that any other
    >                             clarification is needed ??? but Toerless ??? if
    >                              > > you can point to any specific
    >                             sentences/paragraphs which you find confusing
    >                              > > - I???ll take a second look.
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > >    Les
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > 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
    >                              > > > BIER@ietf.org
    >                             <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org
    >                             <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>>
    >                              > > >
    >                             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >                             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > >
    >                              > > > --
    >                              > > > 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
    >                              > >
    >                              > > --
    >                              > > ---
    >                              > > tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>____
    >
    >                         __ __
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >                 _______________________________________________
    >                 BIER mailing list
    >                 BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
    >                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >                 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > BIER mailing list
    > BIER@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >
    
    _______________________________________________
    BIER mailing list
    BIER@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier