IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on charter-ietf-bier-00-01: (with COMMENT)

Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> Tue, 17 February 2015 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <erosen@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AB51A89B4; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gQTJgbteJWXh; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:13:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA35B1A873A; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:13:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1096.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.103.142) by BY1PR0501MB1143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.103.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.18; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:13:09 +0000
Received: from [172.29.33.103] (66.129.241.12) by BY1PR0501MB1096.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.103.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.18; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:13:07 +0000
Message-ID: <54E35A7C.70605@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:13:00 -0500
From: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Alia Atlas' <akatlas@gmail.com>, 'Joel Jaeggli' <joelja@bogus.com>
References: <20150214214725.9126.32255.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAG4d1rfD6ue_cac35PYCPhK0J2jNxA7MqUu2ZsaAEokAbK57WQ@mail.gmail.com> <011501d04904$bacd7bf0$306873d0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <011501d04904$bacd7bf0$306873d0$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.241.12]
X-ClientProxiedBy: BN1PR07CA0060.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.255.193.35) To BY1PR0501MB1096.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.103.142)
Authentication-Results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1096;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BY1PR0501MB10966B5514DD764E466DA75A9E2F0@BY1PR0501MB1096.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005003); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1096;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0490BBA1F0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6049001)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(479174004)(77096005)(230783001)(65806001)(65956001)(66066001)(42186005)(77156002)(33656002)(76176999)(54356999)(36756003)(50986999)(2950100001)(65816999)(50466002)(92566002)(47776003)(83506001)(46102003)(122386002)(40100003)(86362001)(87976001)(23746002)(62966003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1096; H:[172.29.33.103]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1096;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2015 15:13:07.1242 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1096
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1143;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Cjau_p3imfOx3bdWlAm_Pz1mIH4>
Cc: 'Greg Shepherd' <gjshep@gmail.com>, bier@ietf.org, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, erosen@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [Bier] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on charter-ietf-bier-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Feb 2015 15:13:12 -0000

On 2/15/2015 4:49 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> how about this charter limit the work to a single domain?

I really don't see any reason for the charter to limit the work to a 
single domain.

If you look at draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bier, for example, it does support 
multiple domains.  One could argue whether that draft belongs in BIER or 
BESS, but of course the answer is "both".  We don't want to get into a 
situation where BIER can't consider it because it is "out of charter", 
and then BESS can't consider it because it is about BIER but outside 
BIER's charter.

This sort of issue can be left in the hands of the WG(s).  Too many 
details and restrictions in the charter just leads to a lot of politics. 
  (The real "poster child" for the dangers of an overly constraining 
charter is PPVPN.  All kinds of nonsense was put in the charter to 
ensure that the work that came out would be significantly different than 
the work that went in.  This delayed formal publication of the work for 
seven years, but in the end the work that came out was substantially the 
same as the work that went in, and market penetration was not at all 
delayed.  But there was lots and lots of annoying politics.)

One issue that the process wonks might want to think about is codepoint 
allocation.  If there is not going to be a mechanism for the early 
allocation of codepoints, one can anticipate that there will be lots of 
codepoint squatting, with the usual set of hassles arriving later.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email