Re: [Bier] Pls "vote" on name (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Pressed :wq (send button) too fast, quick amendment:

If i think of a larger "Traffic Engineering" with BIER framework (BIER-TE ?)
i think that could also include BIER (not BIER-PE) combined with PCE,
combined with same bandwdith/buffering addons, but now we have no
explicit per-tree path steering but could only combine with what i called
unicast policy routing (e.g.: (flex-)topologies, which of course more
limited in path steering than BIER-PE.

[ If thats too confusing, think of IPv6 multicast to make the question easier:
  PIM-SM plus RSVP (NOT RSVP-TE) plus e.g.: optional (flex)topologies plus PCE. ]

I do not know if such options could rightfully be called
"Traffic Engineering" (which i think is a term wholly owned by TEAS).
If it would, and if it would be desirable for TEAS to also document such an
option, and have that be covered under the larger umbrella of BIER
Traffic Engineering (together of course with the option of BIER-PE),
then we would have the fact that we are back to the naming overlap
where we started:

  BIER-TE(1) as this documents Tree Engineering method , but called "Traffic Engineering"
  BIER-TE(2) as a larger framework with the option to include BIER-TE(1)
             and BIER, and also called "Traffic Engineering".

WG seems to like calling BIER-TE(1) "Tree Engineering", so we'd end up
with the same abbreviation, but at least two different meanings between
(1) and (2).

But i'll withhold my opinion about what i'd ultimately think is
least confusing until i hear back from you about what you think the
section you claim missing in the doc would exactly have to entail.

Just wanted to add what i missed to say in the first mail.

Cheers
    Toerless


On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 01:31:35AM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I do not think we are playing games, we are i think just following the
> advice a least as i understand it from the feedback received from you and Deb.
> 
> I added a section 1.1 after your first feedback explaining how this
> BIER-PE draft relates to traffic engineering the best way i understand it,
> but then you suggested that i should remove it again or else it would
> require mayor changes (which i still expressed interest in seeing).
> 
> If you think traffic engineering support would only require an additional section
> (without changes to the rest of the document ?) then i would happy to 
> understand what that section would need to say and of course you are
> more than welcome to contribute text.
> 
> I can not say yet if that solution makes more sense unless i understand
> better what you are proposing. But i think it would be great if it did
> (make more sense).
> 
> And no, i am sorry, but i did not read your preference to extend this
> document to be able to claim traffic engineering from the feedback i
> have seen from you so far.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Chairs/all
> > 
> > Rather than play games with the name why not just add the one section that's
> > missing to support traffic engineering and then you can legitimately call it
> > TE? (Some may have noted that this was my preference in my mail that kicked
> > off this discussion.). I'm even happy to contribute text.
> > 
> > Doesn't this make the most sense?
> > 
> > Lou
> > 
> > 
> > ----------
> > On February 28, 2020 11:03:04 AM Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Yepp, I concur with Greg ... tony
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:00 AM Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > My vote: BIER-TE
> > > > Call it Tree Engineering. If we were so concerned with acronym overuse the
> > > > IETF would grind to a halt. I've been involved in other WGs where I felt
> > > > the name missed the mark describing the ideas in the draft, but felt
> > > > reading the draft was how someone got their heads around the proposed
> > > > solution, rather than miss-read the title and run away confused. ie -
> > > > Vlex-Algo. No, it's Flex-Topo, but what's to be gained from arguing for a
> > > > name at this point?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, we should strive to be as 'correct' as possible. But the IETF is full
> > > > of baggage that engineers have managed to wade through, make sense of, and
> > > > implement successfully. Get the spec right, No #1 priority. If you don't
> > > > like the name, read on. It will grow on you. :)
> > > > 
> > > > Shep (w/o chair hat)
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:31 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If you go with PBR, you could continue the BIER WG traditional of
> > > > > selecting brew-based acronyms. Hence, that would be my vote. It could be
> > > > > confused with Policy Based Routing but only if someone actually implements
> > > > > it.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Acee
> > > > > 
> > > > > ???On 2/28/20, 9:23 AM, "BIER on behalf of Toerless Eckert" <
> > > > > [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Sure, Just reply wth the ones you like whether existing or added and
> > > > >     give them the weiht you like, e.g.: from your email something like:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     5  BIER-PBR    (Path Based Routing)
> > > > >     5  BIER-PST    (Path based STeering)
> > > > >     3  BIER-PE     (Path Engineering)
> > > > > 
> > > > >     On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 07:54:07AM +0000, Dirk Trossen wrote:
> > > > >     > Toerless, all,
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > May I add to the mix (which might not help) with the proposal for
> > > > > 'path-based routing' (or BIER-PBR) or 'path-based steering' (or BIER-PST)?
> > > > > If you want to keep a two letter acronym, I'd add 'path steering' (rather
> > > > > than path engineering) to the mix. From the below, without considering any
> > > > > alternatives, I'd go for BIER-PE but it comes with the issues like many two
> > > > > letter acronyms, namely the higher 'collision rate' with others.
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Best,
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Dirk
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >     > From: BIER [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Toerless
> > > > > Eckert
> > > > >     > Sent: 27 February 2020 21:41
> > > > >     > To: [e-mail]
> > > > >     > Cc: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; BRUNGARD,
> > > > > DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > >     > Subject: [Bier] Pls "vote" on name (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch)
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Dear WG
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Please chime in with opinions about the following or any new name
> > > > > you like as the new name for BIER-TE. Timeout is deadline for submission of
> > > > > draft before IETF107, when i'll post an update. If you propose a new name
> > > > > try to avoid re-using abbreviations that may be misinterpreted.
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > 5 = best name ever, ... 1 = lame name, no number assigned means 0
> > > > > votes are just added up and maximum sum option wins.
> > > > >     > Explanations if you haven't followed thread at the end.
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > BIER-PE  - Path Engineering
> > > > >     > BIER-ET  - Explicit Trees
> > > > >     > BIER-EET - Explicit Engineered Trees
> > > > >     > BIER-BET - Bit Engineered Trees
> > > > >     > BIER-BST - Bit Steered Trees
> > > > >     > BIER-TrE - Tree engineering
> > > > >     > BIER-ET  - Engineered Trees
> > > > >     > BIER-ST  - Steered Trees
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > BIER-ASB - Adjacency Steering Bits   (adjacencies are how bits in
> > > > > BIER-PE are defined)
> > > > >     > BIER-AB  - Adjacency Bits
> > > > >     > BIER-SB  - Steering Bits             (overloads with "Source Block"
> > > > > - never heard)
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Thanks,
> > > > >     >     Toerless
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Explanations: If you have read through the threads with Lou and
> > > > > Deborah, and my understanding is correct:
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Lou desired there to be a new name so BIER-TE the
> > > > > forwarding/steering mechanism (this document) is named differently from
> > > > > BIER-TE the larger framework utilizing TEAS/PCE definition (separate future
> > > > > draft).
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Lou did not like my "Path Engineering" proposal as the name in the
> > > > > last version of the doc and felt we should pick a name with
> > > > > Steering/routing-policy in it. I think usn only steering/routing would be
> > > > > misleading (confused with unicast approaches).
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > Deborah pointed to avoiding confusions in the name with
> > > > > pre-established named (e.g.: "PE" meaning Provider Edge).
> > > > >     > Said we should finalize on the name before we as the WG should pass
> > > > > the document to IESG. And she asked chairs to extend last-call by one more
> > > > > week (unrelated). Hence timeout end of next week.
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > _______________________________________________
> > > > >     > BIER mailing list
> > > > >     > [e-mail]
> > > > >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > > >     >
> > > > >     > _______________________________________________
> > > > >     > BIER mailing list
> > > > >     > [e-mail]
> > > > >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > > > 
> > > > >     --
> > > > >     ---
> > > > >     [e-mail]
> > > > > 
> > > > >     _______________________________________________
> > > > >     BIER mailing list
> > > > >     [e-mail]
> > > > >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > BIER mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

-- 
---
[e-mail]