Joe - Thanx for the review. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:19 AM > To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: bier@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 > > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Has Nits > > I am reviewing draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 on behalf of the ops > directorate in an effort to ensure attention to operational considerations. > This document defines a new sub-TLV for IS-IS for use with BIER. It also > defines an IANA registry for additional sub-sub-TLVs for this new BIER sub- > TLV. > Overall, this document is ready with some nits. > > The only substantive comment I have is in section 5.6 regarding reporting > misconfigurations. What is not stated is _how_ this is to be done. There is > no reference to a standard BIER or IS-IS mechanism with how this reporting > should be carried out. For operational consistency, I feel some guidance > should be offered. > [Les:] Implementations have many possible vehicles for logging errors/significant events. There are proprietary logging mechanisms, standardized network management events, etc. I don’t think it is within scope of this document to discuss (for example) the YANG model - nor is it in general within the scope of the IETF to specify how proprietary logging mechanisms should work. So I really have no clue as to what you expect here. We are simply specifying that implementations treat this as a loggable event. How they do it is out of scope. > The one nit I noticed is in section 6.2: > > OLD: > > Label ranges in multiple sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT overlap. > > NEW: > > Label ranges in multiple sub-sub-TLVs MUST NOT overlap. [Les:] ACK Les
