Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin, 

Thanks for your work in evaluating the discussion, complaint, and bringing the issue to resolution. I'm sure everyone can appreciate that it was not an easy task and one that required consideration and respect for everyone's opinions. 

On 5/31/21, 9:29 AM, "BIER on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    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.

I agree wholeheartedly. I came to the discussion late and by the time I was ready to chime, the complaint had been registered and discussion had been suspended. There was much support for the document. From a technical standpoint, the draft represents the most straight-forward way, i.e., via IPv6 next-header to support BIER in IPv6.  Also, I'd point out that adoption of this option does not preclude other alternatives. 

Thanks,
Acee

    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
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier