Re: [Bier] Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

The draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements has also been rev'd. I hope you plan
on presenting this as well, to build support. This work has yet to reach
consensus.

Thanks,
Greg

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:45 AM Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Inline:
>
>
>> If you think it is necessary to present the draft in IETF 108, we are
>> very willing to request a time slot and introduce the progress.
>>
>
> Yes I do. I've said so in multiple email messages to you.
>
>
>> The information is as follows:
>>
>> Draft: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>>
>> Presenter: Xuesong Geng
>>
>> Length: 10 minutes
>>
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Xuesong
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Greg Shepherd [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:21 PM
>> *To:* Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for
>> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> Geng,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the new version. Please leave all adoption calls on the list
>> to the Chairs. Additionally, it doesn't require adoption for participants
>> to read and comment. And any call for adoption should come after there has
>> been adequate time for the group to read and evaluate. But more
>> importantly, you and I spoke about your draft getting adequate time for
>> discussion at the upcoming WG meeting. This will give you yet another
>> attempt to build support and make your case for adoption to the group.
>> Please stay focused on your upcoming presentation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shep,
>>
>> (Chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your response.
>>
>> We are not calling for adoption by ourselves, as the subject shows, we
>> are “requesting WG adoption”. What we are trying to do is just inviting
>> more people to review the draft, and at the same time, we are glad to see
>> that quite some of them are interested in this topic and would like to show
>> their support in the mailing list.
>>
>> I agree that technical comments are very important for us. Actually,
>> there have been a lot of technical discussions about this draft in WG, and
>> we have updated the draft based on these comments, including:
>>
>> 1.      Whether IPv6 Extensions defined in the draft are reasonable and
>> go along with RFC 8200 (especially section 4.2 “options”, section 4.6
>> “Destination Options Header”) and other IPv6 rules:
>>
>> -        We have taken the draft to 6MAN mailing list and asked for
>> review and advice twice, respectively in March and July; There is no
>> objection in 6MAN and all we get is positive voice;
>>
>> 2.      How to support BIER OAM:
>>
>> -        In section 3.1 of the document, we have updated the descriptions
>> about how to use “Proto” field, what is the relationship between “Proto”
>> and “Next Header” and what has been updated compared to RFC8296 Section
>> 2.1.1 ;
>>
>> 3.      Security Considerations:
>>
>> -        We have added “section 5 security” , giving instructions to
>> handle with different kinds of possible security threats;
>>
>> 4.      Concerns about using unicast IPv6 address to convey multicast
>> packet:
>>
>> -        We have added Appendix C to explain why it works and what
>> benefits it will bring;
>>
>> 5.      Is there any requirement for BIERv6 ?
>>
>> -        Yes. With the deployments of SRv6 for unicast, operators are
>> searching for stateless multicast solution in IPv6 domain, aligning with
>> the design of SRv6.
>>
>> -        Yes. A lot of operators love the idea of “Native IPv6 BIER” and
>> think it is a promising solution that could be used in the IPv6 network.
>>
>> -        We believe that the idea of BIERv6 will be very helpful to the
>> further development of BIER and IPv6.
>>
>> Besides these aspects, we are always open to any other technical comments
>> on the list.
>>
>> If you have any suggestions about how to move the document forward,
>> please also let us know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Xuesong
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony Przygienda [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:08 PM
>> *To:* Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* BIER WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for
>> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> <as chair>
>>
>>
>>
>> To make it perfectly clear, it is not up to the authors and only within
>> the chairs' competence to call for adoption so save yourself any +1 here
>> please as they serve no further purpose @ this point in time. Technical
>> discussion on the draft is obviously welcome on the list.
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> --- tony
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:31 AM Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear BIER WG,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have published a new version of draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08*,
>> and we would like to request WG adoption for the document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Xuesong
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Per the direction of WG, we have asked 6man’s review. We’ve received all
>> positive comments with some great editorial suggestions.
>>
>> In this version, we have updated the document based these feedback:
>>
>> 1.      Reasonability of using IPv6 unicast address is confirmed, so
>> extra descriptions in section 3.2 are removed and put into Appendix C;
>>
>> 2.      A diagram showing BIERv6 packet processing in an IPv6 domain is
>> added in section 4 to show how a BIERv6 packet goes through a non-BIER IPv6
>> node;
>>
>> 3.      Descriptions about the relationship between BIERv6 and BIER are
>> added in Appendix A; The corresponding control plane extensions are added
>> in Appendix B;
>>
>> The document have also addressed all the concerns that has been raised in
>> BIER WG:
>>
>> 1.      How BIERv6 could support BIER architecture defined in RFC 8279,
>> including OAM;
>>
>> 2.      How BIERv6 security is guaranteed;
>>
>> 3.      The technical benefits brought by BIERv6;
>>
>> After all the updates , we believe the document is ready for WG adoption.
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>
>> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>
>> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 2:26 PM
>>
>> > To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <[e-mail]>; Gengxuesong (Geng
>>
>> > Xuesong) <[e-mail]>; Rajiv Asati <[e-mail]>;
>> Liang
>>
>> > Geng <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra
>>
>> > <[e-mail]>; MooChang Shin <[e-mail]>;
>>
>> > Senthil Dhanaraj <[e-mail]>; Yongqing Zhu
>>
>> > <[e-mail]>; Mike McBride <[e-mail]>;
>>
>> > Zhuangzhuang Qin <[e-mail]>
>>
>> > Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > A new version of I-D, draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>>
>> > has been successfully submitted by Xuesong Geng and posted to the IETF
>>
>> > repository.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Name:            draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
>>
>> > Revision:        08
>>
>> > Title:               Encapsulation for BIER in Non-MPLS IPv6 Networks
>>
>> > Document date:   2020-07-13
>>
>> > Group:            Individual Submission
>>
>> > Pages:            21
>>
>> > URL:
>>
>> >
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>>
>> > Status:
>>
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation/
>>
>> > Htmlized:
>>
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>>
>> > Htmlized:
>>
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
>>
>> > Diff:
>>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Abstract:
>>
>> >    This document proposes a BIER IPv6 (BIERv6) encapsulation for Non-
>>
>> >    MPLS IPv6 Networks using the IPv6 Destination Option extension
>>
>> >    header.  This document updates RFC 8296.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>>
>> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The IETF Secretariat
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>