+1 obviously ... On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Acee, > > Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate and agree with the perspective. > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >> I support Peter's position on the draft. While I believe at 8 bit space >> is more than enough to support variations of the BIER algorithm for the >> foreseeable future, I think reaching consensus is more critical than the >> precise encoding. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 2/20/18, 12:28 PM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" < >> [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alia, >> >> 1. I see a benefit in having the BIER a way to map to any of the IGP >> algorithms. Simply because IGPs already provide paths to all nodes in >> the domain and BIER can simply use these paths instead of computing >> its own. >> >> 2. Not sure if people plan to deploy the BIER in a model where it does >> its own topology related computations, independent of IGPs. If they >> do, >> I'm not objecting that. >> >> The encoding of the BAR though must be done in a way that it easily >> supports both (1) and (2). >> >> my 2c, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On 19/02/18 22:51 , Alia Atlas 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 >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
