Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-15
review-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-12-genart-lc-sarikaya-2024-10-02-01

Hi Jeffrey,

Please see inline.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 3:39 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>
wrote:

> Hi Behcet,
>
> Thanks for your review and comments. I have posted the -13 revision to
> address them.
>
> Please see zzh> below for some clarifications.
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 1:10 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: bier@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions.all@ietf.org;
> last-call@ietf.org; sarikaya@ieee.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-12
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CgASV5ezXUNVWAIcPScISj_9M9mrzOL4DJQj9p4W9uWSCIaag2HDY49NYNgzROHCwWyPOw1L53mngJ0$
> >. > > Document: draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-?? > Reviewer: Behcet
Sarikaya > Review Date: 2024-10-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-03 > IESG
Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary:The document presents
BGP extensions for advertising the BIER > information and methods for
calculating BIER states based on the > advertisement. > Basically it interfaces
BIER with BGP for realizing the multicast delivery. > > Major issues:As
security reviewer pointed out, Sec. 1 claims the BIER > attributes leaking out
of BIER domain avoidance is not realized. It has > excessive number of
editorial issues. It has 6 authors. > > Zzh> As the security reviewer pointed
out, the operation consideration > section does talk about leak prevention. As
I responded there, I added a > reference to Sec. 1. > Zzh> The six-author
justification is provided in the shepherd write-up: > "There are six authors
and all have contributed to the document.The sixth > co-author Zhaohui Zhang 
is the main editor of version 8 and version 9. He > make a huge effort to
improve the draft.". >

I raised this issue to the attention of the AD. I think he should take care
of it.

> Zzh> Sorry for the editorial issues especially the silly typos. Sometimes
> I forget to run revisions through the spell/grammar checker. I hope I have
> now addressed all of them.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> to coney -> to convey
>
> zzh> Fixed.
>
> the original draft name has idr extensions not BGP extensions. Of course
> draft name is very difficult to change after so many revisions.
>
> Zzh> Right. The draft name does not really matter 😊
>
> Section 2 on terminology does not contain all the acronyms used.
> All acronyms should be expanded in first use.
>
> Zzh> I added/expanded AFI/SAFI/NLRI/BIFT/LSP/AS. Please let me know if I
> missed anything else.
>
> Some TLV figures have a figure number some don't, why?
>
> Zzh> No good reason 😊 Apparently some use "figure" and some use
> "artwork". I have fixed them.
>
> Sec. 5 second par. sub-TLV at all, The entry's BFR Neighbor -> sub-TLV at
> all, the entry's BFR Neighbor
>
> Zzh> Fixed.
>
> Sec.5 states that BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively
> (BIER header
>    directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly
>    connected,
>
> I think this is very important to emphasize that BIER supports/ realizes
> native multicast deliver as opposed to tunneling so the document should
> single out the cases of tunneling everywhere in the document.
>
> Zzh> The tunneling is only mentioned in these three paragraphs for the
> applicable scenarios, and I believe it is appropriate:
>
>    BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively (BIER header
>    directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly
>    connected, or via a tunnel otherwise.  Notice that, if a non-BFR BGP
>    speaker re-advertises a BIER prefix (in this case it can not update
>    the BIER attribute since it is not capable), or if a BFR BGP speaker
>    re-advertises a BIER prefix without updating the BIER Nexthop sub-
>    TLV, the BFR receiving the prefix will tunnel BIER traffic - the BGP
>    speaker re-advertising the BIER prefix will not see the BIER traffic
>    for the BIER prefix.
>
>    How the tunnel is set up and chosen is outside the scope of this
>    document.  It can be any kind of tunnel, e.g., MPLS LSP or IP/GRE, as
>    long as the tunnel header can indicate that the payload is BIER.
>
>    ...
>
>    When BFR1 receives the routes, it calculates the BIFT entries, using
>    BFR2's address encoded in the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV as the nexthop.
>    Because BFR2 is not directly connected, a tunnel must be used.
>
> Sec.6 BFRer1 -> BFER1
>
> Zzh> Fixed.
>
>
I checked Rev. 13 vis-a-vis the points I had raised. I am happy to state
that all have been resolved to my satisfaction.
So I change my  review result to READY

Regards,
Behcet

> Zzh> Thanks!
> Zzh> Jeffrey
>