Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ping

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I agree with Jeffrey,

Greg, lemme know if you need my help.

Thx,

Ice.

> On 27 Feb 2023, at 18:54, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
>  
> I think it is important to finish the work if we want to see BIER widely deployed.
> I see that you’re a co-author of the draft. If others have lost thrust, I support you taking over the pen and move it forward.
> I did the same thing for two other drafts.
>  
> BIER is a multicast technology breakthrough. Though the deployment has lacked behind, it’s due to the chicken-and-egg problem between vendors and operators. Vendors are catching up and it’s time to break the chicken-and-egg dilemma by pioneering operators and vendors – the WG should be encouraged to progress all the work that have been started but somewhat stalled.
>  
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>  
>  
> Juniper Business Use Only
> From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2023 7:08 PM
> To: BIER WG <[e-mail]>; BIER WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Bier] Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
>  
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  
> Dear All, 
> I've raised this question several times in the course of two years. Perhaps I sound like a broken record. Nevertheless, I hope to get a clear answer to the question:
> Is there interest and will in the WG to complete the BIER OAM work adopted over the years?
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 2:12 PM
> Subject: Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> To: Dr. Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>, Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>, Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
>  
> 
> Dear All, 
> the IETF-116 is approaching and I think that it is a good time to discuss the situation with the OAM in BIER work. the group has decided not to publish the OAM requirements in a BIER domain  There are several drafts describing OAM solutions for BIER in advanced stages, among those are:
> 	• draft-ietf-bier-ping
> 	• draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery
> 	• draft-ietf-bier-bfd                                                          
> The progress of the two latter drafts is blocked by the unavailability of the pen-holder of the BIER Ping draft. More than a year ago, I've proposed updates to address the Shepherd review comments. I received no objections from the authors, nor a new version was uploaded. I've raised this issue on the BIER WG mailing list and at our meetings. I am asking you to consider assigning a new Editor to the draft-ietf-bier-ping to unblock this and other OAM documents in the BIER WG.
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:49 PM
> Subject: Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> To: BIER WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
>  
> 
> Hi Tony and Greg, 
> I'm trying to reach out to Nagendra. The authors discussed Shepherd's comments and prepared updates addressing them. If needed, I can edit the document and work on it through the publication process. I greatly appreciate your consideration and suggestions.
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]>, BIER WG Chairs <[e-mail]>, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>  
> 
> Another friendly reminder. 
> Attached, please find my comments on the proposed new version of the draft.
> Please let me know if you need my help driving this work through to the finish line.
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:58 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Nagendra,
> I hope this note finds you well.
> I'm re-sending my comments to the update you've prepared that also reflects a change in my affiliation. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Progressing this document will be most helpful and allow us to move forward with draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
>  
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:09 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Nagendra, 
> thank you for leading this work. I've sent my comments earlier (attached). Looking forward to your response.
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Team,
>  
> Trying it again. Please elt me know if you have any comments before tomorrow EoB so I can go ahead and submit the same.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
>  
>  
> From: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 8:45 AM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
>  
> Ok. That make sense.
>  
> Please find the updated version and the diff.
>  
> If everyone are in agreement, I will go ahead and submit the new version and ask for the chairs to consider for WGLC.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
>  
> From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:58 PM
> To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:58 PM
>  
> Hi Nagendra,
>  
> For now, since the Proto filed and the Reserved field are set to zero, there should be no backward compatibility issue for the implementations, at least for the implementation I know.
>  
> Best regards,
> Mach
>  
> From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:05 AM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
>  
> Hi Mach,
>  
> I am fine to merge if everyone agrees. Since you are aware of an existing implementation, would it not create backward compatibility issue for the same?.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
>  
> From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:10 AM
>  
> Hi Greg and all,
>  
> Indeed, seems a good idea to merge the Proto field and the Reserved field.
>  
> Best regards,
> Mach
>  
> From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:34 PM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
>  
> Dear All,
> I think that if we want to allow that active OAM in BIER can precede user data, then the Proto field in the BIER OAM packet must match the Proto field defined in RFC 8296. But if this use case is not interesting, we can just merge the space into the Reserved field.
> My $.02
>  
> Regards,
> Greg
>  
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Mach Chen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Nagendra,
>  
> I just got a confirmation that an implementation is using 4 bit Proto field L
>  
> Actually, the proto filed in Echo Req/Rep is useless, why not we just remove it?
>  
> In addition, read the draft again, the common OAM header defines a OAM Message Length, but in the Bier Ping Echo Request/Reply, there is no such a length field, seems they are not consistent. 
>  
> Best regards,
> Mach
>  
> From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:28 AM
> To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping 
>  
> Hi Mach,
>  
> Since you mentioned that there are implementation, I cancelled the submission to confirm if the Proto field extension from 4 to 6 bits is ok or if it will break any existing implementation?.
>  
> Co-Authors,
>  
> Please confirm the same so we can either revert or go ahead with the changes.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
>  
>  
> From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:07 PM
> To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping 
> Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:06 PM
>  
> Hi Nagendra,
>  
> Thanks for the updates, it looks good to me.
>  
> IMHO, this version is very stable, should we ask WGLC? In addition, I know there are some implementations, in order to avoid potential code point conflicts, should we ask early code point allocation as well?
>  
> Best regards,
> Mach
>  
> From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 4:50 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: draft-ietf-bier-ping 
>  
> Hi Co-Authors,
>  
> Please find the updated version that incorporates the comments from the Shepherd (Mankamana) and the affiliation update for one of the authors.
>  
> I will be submitting the new version by tomorrow.
>  
> Thanks,
> Nagendra
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier