Hi Jeffrey, Please see inline. On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 3:39 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> wrote:
> Hi Behcet, > > Thanks for your review and comments. I have posted the -13 revision to > address them. > > Please see zzh> below for some clarifications. > > > Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 1:10 PM > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: b...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions....@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; sarik...@ieee.org > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-12 > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya > Review result: Not Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CgASV5ezXUNVWAIcPScISj_9M9mrzOL4DJQj9p4W9uWSCIaag2HDY49NYNgzROHCwWyPOw1L53mngJ0$ > >. > > Document: draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-?? > Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya > Review Date: 2024-10-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-03 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary:The document presents BGP extensions for advertising the BIER > information and methods for calculating BIER states based on the > advertisement. > Basically it interfaces BIER with BGP for realizing the multicast delivery. > > Major issues:As security reviewer pointed out, Sec. 1 claims the BIER > attributes leaking out of BIER domain avoidance is not realized. It has > excessive number of editorial issues. It has 6 authors. > > Zzh> As the security reviewer pointed out, the operation consideration > section does talk about leak prevention. As I responded there, I added a > reference to Sec. 1. > Zzh> The six-author justification is provided in the shepherd write-up: > "There are six authors and all have contributed to the document.The sixth > co-author Zhaohui Zhang is the main editor of version 8 and version 9. He > make a huge effort to improve the draft.". > I raised this issue to the attention of the AD. I think he should take care of it. > Zzh> Sorry for the editorial issues especially the silly typos. Sometimes > I forget to run revisions through the spell/grammar checker. I hope I have > now addressed all of them. > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > to coney -> to convey > > zzh> Fixed. > > the original draft name has idr extensions not BGP extensions. Of course > draft name is very difficult to change after so many revisions. > > Zzh> Right. The draft name does not really matter 😊 > > Section 2 on terminology does not contain all the acronyms used. > All acronyms should be expanded in first use. > > Zzh> I added/expanded AFI/SAFI/NLRI/BIFT/LSP/AS. Please let me know if I > missed anything else. > > Some TLV figures have a figure number some don't, why? > > Zzh> No good reason 😊 Apparently some use "figure" and some use > "artwork". I have fixed them. > > Sec. 5 second par. sub-TLV at all, The entry's BFR Neighbor -> sub-TLV at > all, the entry's BFR Neighbor > > Zzh> Fixed. > > Sec.5 states that BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively > (BIER header > directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly > connected, > > I think this is very important to emphasize that BIER supports/ realizes > native multicast deliver as opposed to tunneling so the document should > single out the cases of tunneling everywhere in the document. > > Zzh> The tunneling is only mentioned in these three paragraphs for the > applicable scenarios, and I believe it is appropriate: > > BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively (BIER header > directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly > connected, or via a tunnel otherwise. Notice that, if a non-BFR BGP > speaker re-advertises a BIER prefix (in this case it can not update > the BIER attribute since it is not capable), or if a BFR BGP speaker > re-advertises a BIER prefix without updating the BIER Nexthop sub- > TLV, the BFR receiving the prefix will tunnel BIER traffic - the BGP > speaker re-advertising the BIER prefix will not see the BIER traffic > for the BIER prefix. > > How the tunnel is set up and chosen is outside the scope of this > document. It can be any kind of tunnel, e.g., MPLS LSP or IP/GRE, as > long as the tunnel header can indicate that the payload is BIER. > > ... > > When BFR1 receives the routes, it calculates the BIFT entries, using > BFR2's address encoded in the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV as the nexthop. > Because BFR2 is not directly connected, a tunnel must be used. > > Sec.6 BFRer1 -> BFER1 > > Zzh> Fixed. > > I checked Rev. 13 vis-a-vis the points I had raised. I am happy to state that all have been resolved to my satisfaction. So I change my review result to READY Regards, Behcet > Zzh> Thanks! > Zzh> Jeffrey >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
