Re: [Bier] BIER OAM Document Status

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 27 July 2021 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498923A0CD1; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 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, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 1G32uMB0DTnd; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 410FE3A0CD2; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e19so1272577ejs.9; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:14 -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; bh=Jw9i+RsBcb6Iu0azlTi/OOX5DqLqFh+7yzBB6/Ji9OI=; b=O4QfPtN35aEBe2345NTt9Kvl1FWkOLLRK6feWEK1oN/x3PFuOnzILch0VBd0PCH7iD Mv+T5NMvD3b3At/SuszQutmXWKYBR77Rj7i/mUM8E1GslEyDccsgK18r5vNrfeBMPSk+ 0yMqoAGRxWHa4HLZDabt5KM3rUtYxS6GduGcWlBLXv6lmEtiUFoQa9s8K7cKqFdtriVl pk3jthBd7HivT2vFUWXETsuo2Fez+bpFdSbJMFLUwxF1jfJnaji8yLdaPuGTtbdOzNPr grPnYEo30hokDl8UwjfQQJBIqbL7HO/KTUY9gnaHA6nF/yKAigjCzmhl+QrfebBfCjc+ vYtg==
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; bh=Jw9i+RsBcb6Iu0azlTi/OOX5DqLqFh+7yzBB6/Ji9OI=; b=dcfA7aOYWxhvna2xW+XYIj0zFslftLJUQzFi/8vWomwuCBGIQfpfsV1Z6bdYC+mMKy x/9S2hoSH4aiXPeZOboIKBvMGurtS4K7qtLalrArkbgJD9utRa5q8lqTs1WOiTU5EoZy 4JnNtLPjwbNC4gchxQSd+6JAtJZ+1OsmibZcZ2f/WTSS8TjT+fQPQN8naUyaHEMeXsXr wm+mnNBsyTE9P+DCKv/LLTnpoDre9K+awOoMVh+Gw1c0GhMcanzNS7UDSMMj4b2K/80I tLc9MX20Sw7voSTzE+/w3t6T98m9lZNkHbxeDnokBOYSyGzxGiqb8ZtFQeEu/1WLJjb7 twJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532R//O2yxNREQjlYKrnx0lIA/kye0d/G7bTVty7U/cbQiT+Ki2C 7vhMbQZEdhA7GaYooA53HLdnbWnUXOejyshOj8I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQSRi8N2notv/+0q2L01M+Ygo8GV1pl98HGE5OJxbD6s+5Pm+N4/UfmJftdBoAnr0jEvRwq2ebelYRzwTHpn8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5384:: with SMTP id g4mr24584123ejo.27.1627425851123; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:09 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:44:09 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000c1816005c8229bee"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] BIER OAM Document Status
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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:44:19 -0000


I know you didn’t ask me, but the intent of sending the document back to
the WG is for the WG to discuss the updates (see the link below to the
specific issues I want the WG to consider).



On July 27, 2021 at 5:32:07 PM, ( wrote:

Hi Alvaro,

many thanks for clarifying the status of the draft.

Hi Tony and Greg,

the draft was updated to address AD review comments. Do you feel these
changes need a formal presentation to the WG, or can the draft be moved to
the second WG LC?


Greg Mirsky

Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division

Original Mail
*Sender: *AlvaroRetana
*To: *;gregory mirsky10211915;;
*Date: *2021/07/26 18:05
*Subject: **Re: [Bier] BIER OAM Document Status*
On July 26, 2021 at 7:23:57 PM, wrote:


> draft-ietf-bier-pmm-oam - it appears to be marked as "Dead". The authors
> addressed AD review comments, and the updated version is available (not
> expired).

This shows up as "Dead" from the IESG point of view because -06 (which
was the version I returned to the WG) expired: the system then marks
the document as "Dead" (again, from the IESG point of view, not the

What is needed if for the WG to revisit the document: I returned it
because it needs more WG input, and so that I am not the gating
factor.  I will look at the changes after the document goes back
through the process (WGLC, etc) and is sent back for publication.

Take a look at my comments from 2019-07-02:



BIER mailing list