Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bier-frr-06
review-ietf-bier-frr-06-genart-lc-halpern-2025-02-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-frr
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-03-06
Requested 2025-02-20
Authors Huaimo Chen , Mike McBride , Steffen Lindner , Michael Menth , Aijun Wang , Gyan Mishra
I-D last updated 2025-04-09 (Latest revision 2025-04-08)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Erica Olsen (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Toerless Eckert (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-bier-frr by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fJ7uMyeILUmWOXb0U0KCwmyNHhQ
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2025-02-22
review-ietf-bier-frr-06-genart-lc-halpern-2025-02-22-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-bier-frr-06
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2025-02-22
IETF LC End Date: 2025-03-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but
has two minor issues that should be addressed.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    Section 4 (Representations for BIER-FRR Forwarding Data) begins:
"To minimize the occurrence of redundant packets, it is essential that backup
entries are prioritized for use within the single extended BIFT, as described
in Section 3.2)."
    However, section 3.2 does not discuss prioritizing anything nor duplicate
    avoidance.  I presume this should reference some other section of the
    document? (Some of the relevant text is in section 4.1.)

    Section 5.3 (Example, in Protection Levels) seems to be showing various
    backup paths.  I found myself confused when the text says that the backup
    path to provide node protection for B5 (presumably, for the case where B5
    is thought to have failed) ends with -B5?

Nits/editorial comments: