Thank you for taking the time Joel, very helpful. I'll clean up and clarify those two comments and submit a new revision hopefully tomorrow. mike -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 1:40 PM To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: bier@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-bier-frr.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bier-frr-06 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready with Issues 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: -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
