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

Toerless Eckert <> Fri, 21 July 2017 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41724126DFF; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4MxJShdAT6dR; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00358126C3D; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22D958C4B7; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id A8486B0C64C; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:27:41 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Greg Shepherd <>
Cc: "" <>,,,
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 06:27:49 -0000

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).