Subject: [Bier] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:01:44 -0800

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-13: 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-ospf-bier-extensions/

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

I have a few questions and some nits.
1: The shepherd report says that the AD has noted a large number of authors -
was there discussion to change this?

2: Related: The shepherd writeup says: "Didn’t see IPR disclosures on the alias
archive. Emailed the authors, got responses from 2." -- this means that 5
hadn't responded. Trusting AD to have checked this.

3: Nit: " Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol for its
operation" -- I think that "neither" can be removed.

4: Nit: Section 1:    "BIER architecture requires routers" -> "The BIER
architecture requires routers"

5: Section 2.1: "advertised in the BIER sub-TLV by other BFRs is in conflict
with the association locally configured on the receiving router, the BIER
Sub-TLV MUST be ignored." -- must be ignored and reported, or just ignored?

6: Section 3.  Security Considerations
"Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do not
result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures."
  -- I am not a security AD, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm predicting a
  DISCUSS on this -- it seems inadequate...