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

Tony Przygienda <> Fri, 19 March 2021 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E803A0D79; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8gFvI0pWmZ5H; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4323A0D78; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 19so7589504ilj.2; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CfdQeSBTCm8U0NuvCPEHgoZEcJY2Swz/XVg6rbzcbgk=; b=VkK5kJteoxdMJgH1QjqABMF2EoT+ci7MRlhU8KAK5UaADQ0C433rfOJrormnj9b48D c8Hxe25K8Zi7DcbdRIa9YxIPa1TUuXBIyfIGKLogqgarrGAjuLCi0XUbNaI/GCUtmOCl /U0WLJZeS6tgz6WCmwcFz0WgokfRHJv/zbDgZqv+atuN/do/4tHPjsKCEJGD2tW8se6E dL4Ae/Nv/YC/JP4V8M9sg/T2K6sAoYd2TBi/3BlG1TXce/WKyzUMjxIf3UzWsWoEqfhR bjGeB86d77JiP3abAlQ1to6R7+BA7HFSEHF/Op2D6GeGLPkwIy7rNNqWZgH5ftWHfKYh 4Rpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CfdQeSBTCm8U0NuvCPEHgoZEcJY2Swz/XVg6rbzcbgk=; b=YupLZQExPtF/zEso2DhYUrWLsrW4nPZWMw1Kji9AY8UWGy+JtDTmflTupZ8fUYfkqq Z8oUA5rZ8xMQsTA6zTsFET0tkB2y1QAbtNgYPQ1f82BdTBQatd3qwDJkw4YJToMI9cyN aQwzFLXXyWIKBddx7Y/Zg6Oeb2CzkX/qqg779qsauPvL4lTOwQBE8lk/xjApAO30LJXm RspqcZDwLNmc5FwfnAHQIRYkonH6BEMBmTDa8VTfQNdG85ylmw2o6rIuYcTIJigew47g ++R3GHGfdnJGMqFAQdQsxQYjqP5elPBHWBrMo5P7Jpw2/NFtD6xR4t00FyPQOzneidDx pchw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531K/De0k5qZyPnWOrh01l+qLbQtBg9ZGxcleeN+S7vsZ1If347i AHUsimBImS6RniqETnJRCBTq32W9qKQI7Jzts0Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPOgtjSqwNYzyTImRQSoHPJYDsLnEgoeXHqzWoRDOHtK6jQKb/sSyeWKHUzV2vZiKr9gqzxcKrz1pJOfbVQlc=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:7d0d:: with SMTP id y13mr2227702ilc.269.1616150601691; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 03:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <014101d71ba2$40a9ca00$c1fd5e00$> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tony Przygienda <>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:42:45 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <>
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>, Aijun Wang <>, BIER WG <>, "" <>, BIER WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000084772f05bde16283"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG adoption call for draft-chen-bier-frr-02
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: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:43:26 -0000

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