Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

Adrian Farrel <> Thu, 17 June 2021 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810CE3A2B5F for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xvqd1X0-_GqT for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 160A13A2B5B for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 12:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 15HJaZVf027037; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:35 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02A54604B; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901904604A; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 15HJaYVC016409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:34 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: <>, "'Michael McBride'" <>
Cc: "'Xiejingrong \(Jingrong\)'" <>, <>, "'Martin Vigoureux'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:36:33 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <05ad01d763b0$14c83ce0$3e58b6a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05AE_01D763B8.768D8F40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQIz6PcN+LWzHza25ZzLMNMxbdzDIwHuKUcSARdjA7EBC5mncwI3SYIMqi1IwoA=
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--21.054-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--21.054-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--21.054100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: mGV7xPP3pcV9dA5a4gy28N0NLp60dt7b455LhsBRVm10zarmKAz/XmzB ijri5+RVEVbhXpAxlrk5z95PrMjPJOMbuVzdyYYaIx/OqCk5J10ekU8KuEZI3ydZzA/c4ScjiH9 5tLFH8ef8tMICA1wQk7YekL3kH7KjEUx8GSuSpKTINsfSNFSMCmMjKLTPZpvXymJnc+jh0I5VDC 2y3ufDjVqYwiQV1klIUggv17wbRsoHo166IGhBCDUISyLtoPafIIPIDR8XTCSepM9Grx3sY/Hkp kyUphL9/czC/snTsNdvd96Stg5JD9rhNj8/Va2I2aGC8HFeR+h1p7eQEmUek0CJ9lwsVloQvOAv 94sAIMQj56rvFVgJ7LwxqSK0GSPRrV2ictvsbt0UJdZ1HmvkUtNnWB3f9/gkyaklZFmGgKPece0 aRiX9WsGcvcBoab2jBCzD0Dc8iUuJlMgQaW1mzXNSFQYOn23U2JLyV8YMqd0AH0kGDN+N07dhKo snyp0hrXkuON8pnlFLxCuBTCXaKg2SQTIMDdnDZk3ki93OpLDrkIKQGUkCgdNfhIP7TA2DRTO9m hIXG42xG8pHkjMl8GtEzrC9eANp3EHky+KCVr+aPyWEyuxOvbon1utUBw4Urf4/Hs472iGY9DO0 PnFbxvmoZ6x4ZgCUcRLbJCpMZQw68+rwcOUkgOfMP2XotpTdIsc3bdxCrKimbkU8GU2l3S2416n c3bQl66+NYMjB9uvB8fZdmGC6EJ+gqBZmyCXuCMvRIpemguH+/keNqDs1ndHXKUP2VbFC9FQh3f lUIh4XyU2CxtlxbxW+93iqRvX7vqyyDrntnphAjzdPjuttgDqe9n/pbQGHKzfM9B6IRt7+efAnn ZBiL6SszSEYZXnD7UId8SksdLG47u1bL/QfPuK8/VqZ3cTVoYQpjn5WUKd+3BndfXUhXQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
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: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 19:36:55 -0000



Is it necessary to take a hostile and aggressive approach to these discussions? I am sure you are frustrated and want to move forward, but it feels like you are shutting down discussions rather than trying to resolve them.


Telling someone that they are “unwilling to work collaboratively within the group” is probably not conducive to encouraging them to work collaboratively.


My understanding was that the AD has engaged with you to work on the clarity of your communication, and your email is certainly very clear. But I don’t think it is very nice. We look to those in leadership positions to set the tone for the work in the IETF, and you need to do better.






From: BIER <> On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd
Sent: 17 June 2021 06:08
To: Michael McBride <>
Cc: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <>om>;; Martin Vigoureux <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints




On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:47 PM Michael McBride < <> > wrote:


Le 2021-06-11 à 13:40, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) a écrit :
> Dear Martin,
> We've responded to the summary from chairs on that thread. I think it reflects the key technical differences between us and the chairs.
>>From chairs' point of view, BIERv6 violates BIER architecture, which is L2 in nature and should not be IPv6/SRv6 dependent.
>>From our point of view, BIERv6 does not violate BIER architecture, which should be interpreted by RFC8279 text instead of other informal interpretation.

>it appears to me that this is the discussion the WG needs to have and reach consensus on.

My take from the chairs summary is that they believe BIERv6 is simply unnecessary, not that it violates the bier architecture. 


GS - Correct


There are many of us who believe using EH for the bitstring is a great use of IPv6 with bier. 


GS - "Great use" is not a valid use-case. The WG has been asking the authors for years what the compelling use case is to motivate creating layer dependencies and we are still waiting.


This was presented in 6man with positive feedback.


GS - No, it was presented in 6man and the authors were told 6man had no issues with it from a v6 perspective but that the work needed to work through the BIER WG for all BIER issues. And the WG is rather exhausted at having to repeatedly address the same miss-represetned issues, miss-quoted members of other lists, and having our questions ignored. You are essentially DOS-ing the WG process rather than listening and collaborating. It's clear you are unwilling to work collaboratively within the group. We've tried.


Perhaps the time has come to propose this work in an IPv6 EH friendly WG? 


GS - I trust you understand how the standards process works. Good luck.





> For the detailed technical points in the BIERv6 solution, we think they have been checked carefully in BIER WG and other WGs for long time, and have been proven by implementation and test.
> Also there are solid requirements from industry to have well-adapted BIER solution in IPv6/SRv6 network.
> We seek for your guidance to move our work forward in IETF. We would like to propose two options about what should be done in the next step:
> 1) Consider to adopt BIERv6 in BIER WG, if BIERv6 complies with BIER architecture.
> 2) Move BIERv6 work to other WG, e.g., PIM or SPRING, if BIERv6 does not comply with BIER architecture.
> Thank you very much for your help.
> Jingrong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BIER [ <> ] On Behalf Of Martin 
> Vigoureux
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:29 PM
> To: <> 
> Subject: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
> WG
> First, I'd like to apologize for the time this has taken.
> I have reviewed the two formal complaints that were sent early March, and I have also reviewed most of the e-mails that were sent on the bier mailing list for the past 12 months or so, relating to BIER and IPv6.
> I will not individually discuss the various points raised, rather I will make a general statement.
> It is my opinion that a certain number of points are not critical (in the sense of not needing an AD to step-in) and some typically happen sometimes as part of the life cycle of WGs. Yet, I do recognize that some points are more problematic than others.
> Further, it is my opinion that the points listed may arise from a variety of intentions and as such it is hazardous to associate them with a particular one.
> It is however my opinion that the multiplicity of concerns is, in itself, a concern.
> I have talked with the chairs. They do recognize that, at some occasions, their communication was not the most effective one, and I trust they will pay attention to that in the future.
> About the adoption poll on draft-zhang-bier-bierin6. Although the way this was handled raised some concerns, I'd like to remind that an adoption poll is not formally part of our processes, even if it is common practice, and in fact it only marks the start of the WG discussion. As such, I have little arguments to go back on this.
> The last part is about the progress of a so-called BIER v6 solution.
> Here, I have asked the chairs to establish a summary of the discussions regarding that type of solution in general and regarding the specific document which proposes a solution. They should publish it some time after this e-mail.
> Following that, it is my expectation that the WG has a fair and open discussion, ideally focussing on the general aspects, and then concludes on the way forward.
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> <> 
> <> %2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40fut
> <> %7C251aa4cc378a4f70fee008d92f2c3757%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a
> 1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637592689222267034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&am
> p;sdata=ng78EEFJ0jNyOSdkvfv4Ic6xB3%2FpZkfY66Q%2BWdGZfIk%3D&amp;reserve
> d=0

BIER mailing list <> <;;sdata=dcV1PufJOI0NEKjONjsDIKK3Ib7%2BBF7xiHasDrnGTQs%3D&amp;reserved=0> &amp;;sdata=dcV1PufJOI0NEKjONjsDIKK3Ib7%2BBF7xiHasDrnGTQs%3D&amp;reserved=0

BIER mailing list <>