Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Tue, 30 March 2021 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933183A1DD7; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XTP9m2E6FROF; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FD893A1DDA; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id b10so17464179iot.4; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e8HVnuk5sQMQNAs0b7CbTXSjbuPjcJ/hQBVMGwUlOX8=; b=dAIhBosXQRchlIEb0mNpI9g7XS//OSgeFKFrJImAVB4txAse4gRkAw3xIQLZYwyzBF pqhbooY1og+YY/Im3KSNMLEf/gb5Mxto6l3I0Y50DoZx4YVETi54j9j/4i+LyufGLGNu 4AmZ7Ba59/Jrzu0l2h99PrKeuCJ+HBxbufntdccb2CYmQZ0PSrANOD7fHIWBsRgH2b3b YuL9tjNLtLLvWnK+7s6q/XbD1j71eYeZfMhDGbcs0Ld27gMMVDe7slzlR0SpXr1LWri0 yl0dPPT0Da0HM3BtOg+i4uNrIdvJUEGA9ZzEEyIpTD7EfNkOcv+VMpiSd+ebG2P14YE4 wCYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e8HVnuk5sQMQNAs0b7CbTXSjbuPjcJ/hQBVMGwUlOX8=; b=uoInQsegz+ZmLwHYhGyPH+dxSOcEgEonl+QHPG5UaahI8Ax9wCjzED0ZyOhWNhAnAC FPRkn5pRB8hH5lwpVIu9iEJEffsxixUUIALEs7O40HiJG0SBkx+JXwr5JWPXC77nxUwC EVAtoM+/8bBBjUHfhfcbSXxtdYuLXSLbsU+7en04uP+AAzYRyaN3Cwm30HshB1FpQfIw ZaTDpvlswk7MFkD0hHahNpJRuV/j0Mx/Lo+RU2QpPfRrxHVBai39Uwk5N3HTCsJ1omWF HjWKKzTmigtCKIgrkS5YKOwWtCYvKaudcn6ZFNMJPRwzq41tqcnYLkHkGPUcZ78U59p5 JyOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eAYkIGm6hS1pgtj4zwpgIFeKYDpfRBpPI8c0y+QAY5JJxjnmA vbM58OtFDNPwkp5wdL9rZ8myEwQlTb319kHQzc4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzo6mNMEXeG7IEGpWC86TS+KUlnGklpBl0K2116+WlVxZ2poyil28ktA/ezRsHqr2mJ9mzTf97ZbaqIeG+EYzo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:960d:: with SMTP id w13mr24792183iol.126.1617129133926; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202103161440487606255@zte.com.cn> <CA+wi2hPLG_Og=rDerVqK7hMjkjUGxzjpQnZMSFMf965UVLCxNA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB408751B2E8ACDF05AC9C34B3F2629@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR05MB59811BDE5E469F7C39E253DAD47D9@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABFReBqyAEtW=SmkbU_ub2CEOq+wDADmDyBuUz8Um_-oqKw93g@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR13MB2582C0A8C1076560663C098DF47D9@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB2582C0A8C1076560663C098DF47D9@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 20:31:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hPPHjz89iH-VgvAfOzLjStS_25+zw69N4pDSwt8Th4GMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, BIER WG Chairs <bier-chairs@ietf.org>, "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000956d1905bec537bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/30W5q3W5LE8AV3wWjWd-mwy3cxc>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:32:24 -0000

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Michael McBride <
michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:

> > I agree with Jeffrey. The two drafts should be merged into a new draft,
> which we will then call to adopt. I suggest that the authors of each of the
> two docs:
>
>
>
> A difficult road getting a draft accepted in bier lately despite seemingly
> strong consensus. We will have an -03 published in the next day or two and
> if you feel the need to issue a new adoption call please do so.
>
>
>

Mike, it's your interpretation AFAIS so please do not try to introduce
contention where I don't see any. Nothing "difficult" here. I think the
draft had a lot of interest and generally positive response. Not many
drafts get that, especially attention. Even better we get the previous
draft joined together so we can incorporate both models people pursue in a
clear framework. As to technical objections, they need be discussed and
resolved and/or documented clearly in the draft, that's the point of the
process.

As per my take as simplest way forward we should join previous drafts and
republish into -huaimo-frr which will become draft-ietf-bier-frr anyway
when adopted after the merge so really, what's the difference before one
individual draft or another ending up as ietf-bier-frr except bits of
history [although I admit this may be important to some people] ;-) And of
course authorship has to be apportioned fairly so people are given clear
credit for the work and ideas. That's important.

Since the drafts are being joined I would also like the authors of merged
draft to suggest one or max two committed editors or otherwise see a clear
pen holding here, especially, even if the draft ends up informational, this
is a framework that should be well written and written in a unified way
because it will get quite a lot of reading in the ongoing years I think.

thanks

-- tony