Subject: [Bier] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 18:02:39 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[S2.1, comment]

* "A packet from BFR1 to BFR3,BFR4 and from BFR4 to BFR uses (p1,p2,p3,p4,p6)"

  ->

  "A packet from BFR1 to BFR3,BFR4 and from BFR4 to BFR6 uses (p1,p2,p3,p4,p6)"

  ...I think.

[S4.2.2,4.3 comment]

* Both of these forward_routed() encap sections have no apparent mention
  of MTU considerations.  Maybe just drop a handy reference in one of these
  sections to the text in RFC 8296 section 3?