Dan, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for engaging with Dan’s review. I have entered a No Objection ballot position.
Alissa > On Jun 25, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Dan Romascanu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bier-architecture-?? > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2017-06-25 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-29 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06 > > Summary: > > This document specifies a new architecture known as "Bit Index Explicit > Replication" (BIER) for the forwarding of multicast data packets through a > "multicast domain". It does not require a protocol for explicitly building > multicast distribution trees, nor does it require intermediate nodes to > maintain any per-flow state. This architecture is . While the Abstract and > Introduction of the document mentions Architecture as the principal scope, > this > document goes well beyond the scope of a typical architectural document. > including detailed definitions of the procedures, terminology and normative > algorithms required for BIER. > > The document is clear and detailed. Because of its structure, I am missing > some > information that usually can be found in architecture documents. I included > these in the 'minor issues' list. Although none of these may be a > show-stopper, > I believe that addressing these before document approval can improve the > quality of the document and of the overall BIER work. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. As the document is targeting 'Experimental' it would be useful to mention > what is the scope of the experiment. The charter actually says: > > ' The scope of the experiment will be > documented in the output of the Working Group.' > > Would not the Architecture document be the right place for this? If not, is > there another document that deals or is planned to define the scope of the > experiment? > > 2. While the Abstract and Introduction of the document mentions Architecture > as > the principal scope, this document is different from a typical architectural > document. While it defines well the procedures, terminology and normative > algorithms required for BIER Intra-domain forwarding, it goes well beyond the > level of detail that other similar documents go. Specifications of the > procedures and normative algorithm should be mentioned in Abstract and > Introduction, they occupy the same or more space than architecture. > > 3. On the other hand I am missing the relationship with other work items in > the > BIER charter - there is no manageability section for example, there is no > reference to the performance impact in networks. Maybe these are dealt with in > a different document or documents or BIER, if so it would be good at least to > mention and reference these here. > > 4. I also would have expected the architecture document to refer the use cases > document and note which of the use cases are being addressed and how - > draft-ietf-bier-use-cases is not even included in the references. > > 5. Sections 3 to 6 mentioned repeatedly provisioning. As there is no > Operations > and Manageability section as in many other Routing Area documents, it is not > clear how this is expected to happen. For example draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang is > not mentioned or referred. I suggest adding a note (and maybe references) for > clarity. > > 6. In section 8 I found: > > 'Every BFR must be provisioned to know which of its interfaces lead to > a BIER domain and which do not. If two interfaces lead to different > BIER domains, the BFR must be provisioned to know that those two > interfaces lead to different BIER domains. ' > > It seems that the two 'must' in these sentences would rather be capitalized. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
