Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-12

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 06 August 2021 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EB43A2A90; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LnapCZZmXLBk; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771ED3A2A8E; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c25so836026ejb.3; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wvAHf6PsFTg62w+kkBCkc9IXOqIU9yQHrvJkVSLsHPk=; b=OayYpjwogWHCq7xCBfXK/FBtXsE6qbKuRUv2QJruU8M9iPoXR6NI3uu8kumMjg6u9Q JicY7bE0+q7PEwC21NrVeVq7Ynk7d/3pxvComIAcrv135X95Eb3HPmoPKh82GvM1IHGn lvosj5WfaZUR+y+YsXF5MrD/9kaxbIowA7Op9CbdijiZWnBfzMEDC7kRF9xhM+lPjRuV TP8YukKEfEm3pq68cJ3uAZeEuDFkfJiDLFF8C9S2OAeUGZU50NE3oaRg1B5xRlOxZeWK Ei5OWtccohOu2opbUl74F/cpGyQ96tspFVAKzMBFtNwCO6uXpR83YFNT77cfbznAWHEW K+fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wvAHf6PsFTg62w+kkBCkc9IXOqIU9yQHrvJkVSLsHPk=; b=fotfxUiQi9eTF+UMByhjJ/F0xf5tZgrTLYpVNbq10oC9qey1g1FruHs8J3FIkLaTUL LWu/24S9tvRvyb+KYGUgvZQ0OpD+ZfkUH5+NtU+8PbEVHpTVVkz8Oi46Z5Qu/QF/mCcZ dzAdmr2M0B2oAAeCh7Pq/OjOfGIFymrKIQSPZFirURbk7baVjGcHdJnD7Ta9ALI9vCgh 5WLx5uckiWT5mPQIyM4UDM/+aMrdOAGj58NPDdTKWQ+QzGkHpBTSqXkmS82HmGL/YPRt P8DNgV4pswiLgXGevE4/xzMITT4pV/TVn5Yw6nquXyY2RFZWsz0Cz44uxMpTBkDi0GVY 3smQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532i3WiRzeAJxLImITcXf8cGMimTd1mGreMdp92LgysLQZYkX8hk qGxli+OMmiWBQfwmML/SUA/R86o8+EFoPvnwwbI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1GG03YILgWvsISwrDT6tKOxoki8nT9DLg7QWxPyty85zF/g+Odd7YW5+FtnNivBI0j2vkngsdyZ2AiNp7yZ0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cd14:: with SMTP id oz20mr9342141ejb.478.1628251570200; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 05:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 12:06:09 +0000
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 12:06:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
To: "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <>, "" <>
Cc: Nabeel Cocker <>, "" <>, BIER WG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 12:06:16 -0000

On August 5, 2021 at 8:54:05 PM, Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote:


> On one hand... I understand that a PIM adjacency is not formed over the
> BIER domain. *But* PIM packets and processes are used. For example, §3.1
> talks about sending a PIM packet encapsulated in BIER -- if it is a PIM
> packet then it must follow rfc7761. This includes defining a new PIM Join
> Attribute.
HB> how about if we change it to "signaling packet" and in a paragraph explain
HB> these signaling packets have PIM join,prune packet formats? Would that
HB> remove the confusion?

Explaining that it is the format and not the packet/function is what
is needed, but I don't think that a paragraph is enough as there are
many places in the text that refer to PIM/rfc7761.  But, yes, that is
the right direction.

> In summary, you can't reuse rfc7761 without complying with it.
HB> sorry this is not clear, I don't think at any place we are using rfc7761
HB> in the BIER core or trying to comply with it in the BIER core. Why is not
HB> possible to choose a existing packet format and reuse it for purpose of
HB> singling a desire?

Reusing a format is different than sending a PIM packet through the
BIER domain and expect the receiver to act differently, which is what
the document currently says; for example, §3.1 is clear in saying that
a PIM packet (not something that uses the format of a Join/Prune
message) is used.

In any case, these are the types of things that need to be cleaned up.

> We should plan a call to talk this over. It would be nice to have the
> Shepherd + Authors, but any combination works for me. Please find a time
> that works for you -- here's my calendar:
HB> sure I book some thing next week

BTW, I keep getting bounces from Jeffrey’s address — it should be @ (not .com).  Also  from Fengman’s addresses.  And Ice is
no longer at cisco.  Please update.