As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been following the discussion on
the mailing list with interest.

I have not seen clear consensus for any change.

Let me be clear on what I see the options are from the discussion.  Then
I'll elaborate
a bit on how you can express your perspective most usefully.

1) Current Status:  Bier Algorithm (BAR) field is 8 bits.  Currently, only
value 0 is specified.  The drafts do not have an IANA registry - with the
expectation that one will be created when the first additional use is
clear.  It is possible that there will be objections from the IESG to
progressing without an IANA registry.  Given the lack of clarity for future
use-cases and after discussion, I decided not to force one after my AD
review - but I will not push back against having a BIER IANA registry if
raised by others.

2) Option B:  Add a BAR sub-type of 8 bits.  This would modify the current
   Define an IANA registry for the BAR type.  The meaning of the BAR
sub-type derives
   from the BAR type.   We can debate over the registration policy for the
BAR type.

3) Option C: Change the BAR field to be 16 bits and define an IANA
registry.  Part of the range can be FCFS with Expert Review, part can be
Specification Required, and part can be IETF Consensus.

4) Option D: At some point in the future, if there is an actual understood
and documented need, a BAR sub-type could be added a sub-TLV.  The length
of the BAR sub-type could be determined when the sub-TLV is defined.


  a) option D exists
  b) there is currently only one defined value for BAR
  c) I do not see strong consensus for change to one particular other option

I see no current reason for a change and I certainly see absolutely no
reason for
a delay in progressing the documents.

I do want to be clear about what the WG wants to do on this issue.
Therefore, here is
my following request.

Please send your feedback to the mailing list as follows:

IF you prefer or can accept the current status, please say so.  No more
or reasoning is required. I just don't want the bulk of folks who are
content to be
overlooked by those suggesting change.

IF you prefer or can accept the current status, but think there should be
an IANA registry
as is usual for managing code-points, please say so.  No more justification
is needed.

IF you prefer Option B, C, and/or D, please say so with your explanation.
More technical depth than "'we might need it" would be helpful; the
availability of sub-TLVs already
provides future proofing.

IF you have a clear technical objection to why the Current Status is not
please express that - with clear details.

IF you feel that additional code-points should be allocated in a BAR IANA
Registry or
have thoughts on the appropriate policy, please say so with your
explanation for what
those should be.

Unless I see clear and strong consensus for something other than the
Current Status,
that will remain.

IF there is clear and strong consensus for Option B, C, or D, or adding an
IANA registry with particular values, then it will be possible to have a
change up through this Weds night - with a 1 week WGLC on that particular
technical change.

My priority is to have the base BIER specifications published as Proposed
Standards so that more BIER implementations and deployment can be done.  I
would like the WG to wrap up the core work (as expressed in the proposed
recharter) so that you all can look
at how to use it.

Given this topic was raised last Weds and given that there are no technical
objections raised to the documents as are, there isn't much time - so
please just respond to this email ASAP.  My deadline for a decision is 6pm
EST on Weds.

Isis-wg mailing list

Reply via email to