Hi Alia,

There is one more option that I think is not fully covered from the choice of 
options related to getting a registry.

The topic of the discussion is what information we need to pass in the IGP in 
order for BIER to select the correct underlay. What identifies the underlay is 
really what ever information is needed to select the Table (MT-ID) and 
Algorithm. An example of Algorithm work that is going on is Flex-Algo. My 
preferred option is to align with what ever the IGPs are using to identify the 
Algorithm.

Option E: Change BAR into “IGP Algorithm” registry as documented in 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types

Thx,

Ice.

> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:51, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 
> TLVs.
>    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.
> 
> Given
> 
>   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 
> justification
> 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 
> acceptable,
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> b...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier



_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

Reply via email to