Hi I think this draft is mostly ready. I just have a couple of comments.
In section 1: This revision of the document does not specify the procedures necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM. Those procedures will be added in a future revision. Remove this text? Section 2.1. MPLS Label Should one use different labels to distinguish address families in the same VRF? The PTA must be present in Leaf A-D routes so one can know the BIER prefix of the router joining. It might be obvious, but I think it is worth pointing it out. It is specified for IR (in RFC 7988 section 4.1.1 it says: "Leaf A-D route MUST also contain a PTA"... Stig On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Greg Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote: > BIER, BESS, PIM > > At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC > for some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a > process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the > work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is > that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet > our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and > operator support. > > This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-mvpn > > WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER, BESS, and PIM WGs due to the scope of > the work. > > Thanks, > Greg > (BIER Chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
