Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Thu, 03 June 2021 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427E03A2955 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8eg93NBGJTgM for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9EEF3A2954 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 21:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FwYBX65bxz6P3KY; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:41:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) by fraeml741-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 06:50:30 +0200
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:50:28 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:50:28 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
Thread-Index: AQHXViELnk5x8V3Q7kW0oPV5AOVsY6sBuc4Q
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 04:50:27 +0000
Message-ID: <6f8dfc5766004c1c8112e5b4f3d64b33@huawei.com>
References: <a2a82830-faf2-0992-c4bf-b02cdb8e6e4c@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2a82830-faf2-0992-c4bf-b02cdb8e6e4c@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.112.232.176]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/OyFSc-jp0B6UFWjU58lFylIQdeY>
Subject: Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 04:50:37 -0000

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your response to my complaints. Although it has been 12 weeks since my original email, I understand that there are other things on your time as AD and that this was a detailed issue for you to research.

We look forward to more open and effective communications with the WG chairs, and we are hopeful for the fair and open discussion that you expect. 
It will be good to see the chairs' summary of the discussions regarding the BIERv6 solution in general and regarding the specific document which proposes a solution. This may help explain their attitude towards the work.  From my point of view, it will be more suitable to invite 3rd party to have the summary instead of having the summary by the chairs self.

Of course, you are right that the individual issues that caused us to make a complaint could each have happened for understandable and reasonable reasons. On its own many issues are not critical. But it still feels to me that there was a pattern or behavior that always makes our work come out at the bottom. Please know that we do not object to the WG adopting BIERin6, but we are not happy that BIERin6 and BIERv6 are not given the same opportunity to be presented or discussed in the WG. Actually there was proposal to adopt both drafts and make them experimental until it was clear which had support in the market place. 

Nothing in your email puts in place any process to ensure that the WG will discuss fairly in future. So I would like to understand from the WG chairs and from you some solid suggestions to make this happen and here are some actions I would like to propose based on your suggestions in the response:
- Wait for chairs or 3rd party to produce their summary of discussion of BIER IPv6 topic.
- Opportunity to answer the summary in email list or at IETF-111.
- Full consideration by WG of adopting BIERv6 along with BIERin6.
- No progress on BIERin6 until first three points addressed.

Best Regards,
Jingrong


-----Original Message-----
From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:29 PM
To: bier@ietf.org
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
BIER@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier