Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10
review-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10-opsdir-lc-morton-2017-10-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-10-16
Requested 2017-10-02
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands , Eric C. Rosen , Andrew Dolganow , Jeff Tantsura , Sam Aldrin , Israel Meilik
I-D last updated 2017-10-24
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Al Morton
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Has issues
Completed 2017-10-24
review-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10-opsdir-lc-morton-2017-10-24-00
Authors and OPS-DIR,

I have reviewed the LC version of the draft above,
describing the BIER encapsulation of MPLS and non-MPLS
packets, within the limits of BIER domains and sub-domains.

I noted that BIER routers are expected to decrement TTL,
but if the TTL=1, the packet MUST not be forwarded.
But then, there is no requirement for further action
or notification.

A requirement to pass the expired packet elsewhere seems 
to be necessary to generate a notification of TTL expiry,
but any action beyond discard is worded as optional 
(MAY be passed to other layers for processing).
To me, this seems incomplete from a network operation 
perspective.

If this topic has been discussed at some length, please
let us know how this concern about operations was addressed, or
suggest edits/clarifications to the current text.

thanks and regards,
Al