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 <t...@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. > > 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 > b...@ietf.org > 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
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
