Ballot for draft-ietf-bier-php
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has a DISCUSS. Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Be ye not afraid -- see https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ on handling ballots, especially DISCUSS ballots... This should be an easy to address DISCUSS. I did not see a response to Jen Linkova's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bier-php-12-opsdir-lc-linkova-2024-09-30/), nor do I see it answered in the document. I think that this is a large enough issue that it should be noted in the document (or at least an explanation of why it's not needed).
Other than my DISCUSS issue, I found this a good and clear document. Also thanks to Jen for the OpsDir review - it's a good catch.
Section 4, paragraph 1 > BIER PHP can only be used when the conditions specified in Section 2 > are met. The BIER OAM functionality is not available on the BIER- > incapable flow overlay routers, but using PHP when the conditions are > met is simpler than the alternative of using BIER to send to some > whereas using non-BIER tunnels to send to other flow overlay routers. Thanks to Jen Linkova for his OPSDIR review. He had one minor comment in his review, that I would like to see a response to, if not consider an update to the draft based on the comment. DOWNREF [I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions] from this Proposed Standard to draft-ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions of unknown standards level. (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "his"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"
NIT: There is a mention of RFC8279 that is broken (eg it is only written in regular text)
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bier-php-13 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Xiao Min for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Section 1 I wonder why the MVPN/EVPN examples are given in this document, wouldn't be it enough to say (like in the abstract) "PHP enables the removal of the BIER header by the penultimate router, thereby reducing the processing burden on the final router in the delivery path" ? The text would then be easier to read. ## Section 2.1 What is `A BIER-incapable router` ? Does a router with the BIER code but without BIER configured qualified ? Is it per interface ?