[Bier] Call for Doc Shepherd: draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Please step forward and help participate in the IETF standards process, and
serve your WG members duty. :)

The process is simple and well documented. Just follow the steps and answer
the questions about the document.

Thanks,
Shep
(chairs)

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I finally got to update the draft as suggested below. Please see
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-04.txt.
>
> @[e-mail] - Hope this go move forward now.
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>
>
> Juniper Internal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Senthil Dhanaraj <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 1:53 AM
> > To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> > <[e-mail]>; Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; benjamin r <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: [Bier] IPA replace BAR - inconsistency across documents
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Adding a text of below sorts to draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-03 should
> suffice.
> > " The semantics for the BAR and IPA fields (when both or any of them is
> non-
> > zero) defined in this document updates the semantics defined in
> > RFC8444/RFC8401."
> >
> > Note:
> > Hereon, any new drafts defining the extensions for BIER (ex: BGP) shall
> point
> > to draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-03 to explain the usage of BAR/IPA fields.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Senthil
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BIER [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> > Sent: 02 March 2019 12:09
> > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[e-mail]>; Tony
> > Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; benjamin r <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Bier] IPA replace BAR - inconsistency across documents
> >
> > Jeffrey,
> >
> > I think that an update of RFC8444/8401 is not "necessary".
> >
> > That said, it would be very easy to do the update from the bar-ipa spec,
> just
> > identify then that needs to be changed and tell how it should read.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> >
> > On 2019-03-02 05:52, Jeffrey Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> > > Hi Tony,
> > >
> > > I guess Benjamin’s point is that RFC8444/8401 used “replace” w/o the
> > > “if the other value is 0”.
> > >
> > > I think we all (including Benjamin) agree that the bar-ipa spec is
> > > crystal clear but Benjamin’s question is whether the RFC8444/8401
> > > should change wording, and my thinking is there is no need.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Jeffrey
> > >
> > > *From:*Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2019 2:31 PM
> > > *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> > > *Cc:* benjamin r <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > *Subject:* Re: IPA replace BAR - inconsistency across documents
> > >
> > > I thought that the language was clear enough to mean "replace if the
> > > other value is 0", i.e. as long IGP algorithms are desired BAR=0 is
> > > used, the moment special BIER metrics/computation types depending e.g.
> > > on presence of subdomains and so on is needed, one would use BAR!=0 ...
> > > What IPA!=0 would mean in such a case is to be defined for specific
> > > use cases as far I remember the draft langugage. That seems all pretty
> > > water-tight to me and all people involved were in agreement/had common
> > > understanding as the author lists show ...
> > >
> > > --- tony
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:12 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> > > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Hi Benjamin,
> > >
> > >     I take it that you do agree that the language in
> > >     draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa is fine, just that it is somewhat
> > >     conflicting with the existing wording in RFC8444/8401.
> > >
> > >     Since the bar-ipa draft is for the following purpose:
> > >
> > >         This document specifies general rules for interaction between
> > >     the BAR
> > >
> > >         (BIER Algorithm) and IPA (IGP Algorithm) fields defined in
> > > ISIS/
> > >
> > >         OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER.
> > >
> > >     I am thinking that we don’t need to explicitly update the wording
> in
> > >     RFC8444/8401. Rather, marking this spec with “update RFC8444/8401”
> > >     should be appropriate.
> > >
> > >     What do you think?
> > >
> > >     Thanks.
> > >     Jeffrey
> > >
> > >     *From:* BIER <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
> >>
> > >     *On Behalf Of *benjamin r
> > >     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:46 AM
> > >     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >     *Subject:* [Bier] IPA replace BAR - inconsistency across documents
> > >
> > >     Hi All,
> > >
> > >     *draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-03*states “*If BA is not NULL, AG is set
> to
> > >     BA.*”
> > >
> > >     This means, BAR take precedence over IPA.
> > >
> > >     This statement is conflicting with the OSPF/ISIS RFCs, which states
> > >     IPA replaces path calculation defined by BAR value.
> > >
> > >     *Excerpts fromrfc8444 - S*ection 2.1.
> > >
> > >     IPA:Single-octet IGP Algorithm used to either modify, enhance, or
> > >
> > >     *replace* the *calculation* of underlay paths to reach other BFRs
> > > as
> > >
> > >     *defined by the BAR value*.Values are defined in the "IGP
> > >
> > >     Algorithm Types" registry [IANA-IGP].
> > >
> > >     *Excerpts fromrfc8401 - *Section 6.1.
> > >
> > >     IPA: IGP Algorithm. Specifies an IGP Algorithm to either modify,
> > >
> > >     enhance, or *replace* the *calculation* of underlay paths to reach
> > >
> > >     BFERs as *defined by the BAR value*. Values are from the IGP
> > >
> > >     Algorithm registry. 1 octet.
> > >
> > >     To avoid confusions, can we update the texts in rfc8444 and rfc8401
> > >     to align with draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa-03 ?
> > >
> > >     Thanks
> > >
> > >     Benjamin R
> > >
> > >     VRP PDU, Network Business Line
> > >
> > >     Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
> > >
> > >     Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield
> > >
> > >     Bengaluru-560066, Karnataka
> > >
> > >     Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext II Mob: [phone] Email:
> > >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >
> > >     Company_logo
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > >     This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information
> > >     from HUAWEI, which
> > >     is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
> > >     above. Any use of the
> > >     information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited
> > >     to, total or partial
> > >     disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
> > >     the intended
> > >     recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error,
> > >     please notify the sender by
> > >     phone or email immediately and delete it!
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > BIER mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bier&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbf
> > h0UjBXeMK-
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > m=TgFskPhZ6Z8bnZ0zXuAsfYpYdOx6SmB4557t6dLjbSQ&s=CjdlZbeg9mMTML
> > mDzyg9EUBve3C_CUhrdZPGig-q_CU&e=
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > Senior MPLS Expert
> > Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bier&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbf
> > h0UjBXeMK-
> > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> > m=TgFskPhZ6Z8bnZ0zXuAsfYpYdOx6SmB4557t6dLjbSQ&s=CjdlZbeg9mMTML
> > mDzyg9EUBve3C_CUhrdZPGig-q_CU&e=
>