Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

as parrticiapnt inline

Hi Jeffrey,
>
>
>
> I just want to avoid mixing all the discussions together and getting back
> again. Getting agreement to the following questions may be helpful (also
> could be found in my previous comments):
>
> *1.       **Is BIER FRR necessary? *
>
> (It has been discussed in the discussion of draft-merling. And it is
> raised again. )
>
> Zzh> Of course it is necessary.  Nobody is questioning that.
>
> *2.       **Is BIER FRR implementation dependent so not supposed to be
> standardized?*
>
> (I think we all agree that fast reroute algorithms are kind of
> implementation dependent without signaling. Being simple or rich depends on
> the idea itself.)
>
> Zzh> How BIER FRR is achieved does not need standardization – that’s my
> view for years.
>
splitting hair a bit. either info or experimental and then write code &
present results & document. I would tend to have this ultimately
informational probably since it documents implementatoin techniques and
those are best not standardized albeit of high value. But I ain't gonna
throw stones given el.g. base BIER architecture is pretty handsy as well
talking about BIFTs and stuff already.
'

> *3.       **How to deal with 2 existing documents about BIER FRR?*
>
> ( It depends on WG. When I read these 2 documents, I find they are
> reasonable and independent methods about implementing BIER FRR. They could
> be considered to be adopted together)
>
> Zzh> I had explained my view on why a single merged informational document
> is better.
>
I would prefer a single document on bier-frr as joined Menth and Xuesong
draft with the single BIFT mode & possibly multiple (again, modulo
technical comments on it right now) but it's up to the authros to sit down
and od the work and drink some beer together if they choose.

-- tony