Re: [Bier] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07

[Dan Romascanu <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a short clarification on one point (or two).

See in text.

Regards,

Dan

3. On the other hand I am missing the relationship with other work items in the
BIER charter - there is no manageability section for example, there is no
reference to the performance impact in networks. Maybe these are dealt with in
a different document or documents or BIER, if so it would be good at least to
mention and reference these here.

There is no requirement to include a manageability section.

I believe there is ongoing work having to do with Operations and Management of BIER, but as that does not help to understand the architecture (or forwarding procedures), I don't think it would be appropriate to reference that work.

Yes, OAM is in charter & document for it exists. I see nothing wrong with referencing it but I don't think it needs a manageability section.  

 

5. Sections 3 to 6 mentioned repeatedly provisioning. As there is no Operations
and Manageability section as in many other Routing Area documents, it is not
clear how this is expected to happen. 

How OAM is "expected to happen" would be outside the scope of this document.

The "provisioning" language is unfortunate. We could (and maybe should) replace it simply with "MUST support" rather than "be able to be provisioned" and be done. Whether it's a controller, IGP signalling or anything else is irrelevant to BIER architecture. 

 

Please make a distinction between Operations and Management, and OAM (Operations, Administration, Maintenance) as per RFC 6291. OAM is just one of the aspects of Operations and Management.

While a dedicated section on Operations and Manageability considerations is not mandatory, it is part of many documents in the Routing Area. I hold the opinion that from operators perspective operational and manageability aspects are core and should be dealt with in architecture and protocol documents. Of course, as Gen-ART comments are written for the benefit of the IESG and especially for the IETF chair, it's up to them to consider or discard these comments. Note also that I marked them as 'minor' so they are not show-stoppers IMO.

Regards,