Subject: [Bier] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 11:52:57 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-09: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

One of the most readable documents on MVPN that I can remember reading. Thanks
for that.

When reading Section 2.2, I found myself wondering why you'd choose the
optional explicit tracking mechanism, but found this text

   This method greatly reduces the number of S-PMSI A-D routes that a
   BFIR needs to originate; it can now originate as few as one such
   route (a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route), rather than one for each
   C-flow.  However, the method does not provide a way for the BFIR to
   assign a distinct label to each C-flow.  Therefore it cannot be used
   when segmented P-tunnels are in use (see Section 4 for an
   explanation).

in Section 2.2.2. I wonder if it's worth moving that text to the end of Section
2.2, so the reader goes into 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 understanding the advantage of the
optional mechanism?