Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ping

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeffrey and Ice,
I appreciate your support. Let us follow the IETF process and await the WG
Chairs' decision.

Hi Hooman,
thank you for the update about the existing implementation. I don't foresee
any technical updates to the draft. All changes are editorial addressing
Shepherd's review.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:16 PM Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Just to understand no vendor has this implemented today?
>
> This has been implemented in our software as per draft today and functions
> accordingly, what extra work do we think the ping draft needs?
>
> Thanks
> Hooman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of IJsbrand Wijnands
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 3:12 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=[e-mail]>
> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>; BIER WG
> Chairs <[e-mail]>; Andrew Alston - IETF
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Bier] draft-ietf-bier-ping
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
> links or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext for additional
> information.
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I agree with Jeffrey,
>
> Greg, lemme know if you need my help.
>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
>
> > On 27 Feb 2023, at 18:54, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I think it is important to finish the work if we want to see BIER widely
> deployed.
> > I see that you’re a co-author of the draft. If others have lost thrust,
> I support you taking over the pen and move it forward.
> > I did the same thing for two other drafts.
> >
> > BIER is a multicast technology breakthrough. Though the deployment has
> lacked behind, it’s due to the chicken-and-egg problem between vendors and
> operators. Vendors are catching up and it’s time to break the
> chicken-and-egg dilemma by pioneering operators and vendors – the WG should
> be encouraged to progress all the work that have been started but somewhat
> stalled.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Jeffrey
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> > From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
> > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2023 7:08 PM
> > To: BIER WG <[e-mail]>; BIER WG Chairs <[e-mail]>;
> Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: [Bier] Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> > Dear All,
> > I've raised this question several times in the course of two years.
> Perhaps I sound like a broken record. Nevertheless, I hope to get a clear
> answer to the question:
> > Is there interest and will in the WG to complete the BIER OAM work
> adopted over the years?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 2:12 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > To: Dr. Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>, Greg Shepherd <
> [e-mail]>, Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> > the IETF-116 is approaching and I think that it is a good time to
> discuss the situation with the OAM in BIER work. the group has decided not
> to publish the OAM requirements in a BIER domain  There are several drafts
> describing OAM solutions for BIER in advanced stages, among those are:
> >       • draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >       • draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery
> >       • draft-ietf-bier-bfd
> > The progress of the two latter drafts is blocked by the unavailability
> of the pen-holder of the BIER Ping draft. More than a year ago, I've
> proposed updates to address the Shepherd review comments. I received no
> objections from the authors, nor a new version was uploaded. I've raised
> this issue on the BIER WG mailing list and at our meetings. I am asking you
> to consider assigning a new Editor to the draft-ietf-bier-ping to unblock
> this and other OAM documents in the BIER WG.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:49 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > To: BIER WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > Hi Tony and Greg,
> > I'm trying to reach out to Nagendra. The authors discussed Shepherd's
> comments and prepared updates addressing them. If needed, I can edit the
> document and work on it through the publication process. I greatly
> appreciate your consideration and suggestions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > To: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]>, BIER WG
> Chairs <[e-mail]>, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <
> [e-mail]>
> > Cc: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > Another friendly reminder.
> > Attached, please find my comments on the proposed new version of the
> draft.
> > Please let me know if you need my help driving this work through to the
> finish line.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:58 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Nagendra,
> > I hope this note finds you well.
> > I'm re-sending my comments to the update you've prepared that also
> reflects a change in my affiliation. Please let me know if you have any
> further questions. Progressing this document will be most helpful and allow
> us to move forward with draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery. Please let me
> know if I can be of further assistance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:09 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Nagendra,
> > thank you for leading this work. I've sent my comments earlier
> (attached). Looking forward to your response.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > Trying it again. Please elt me know if you have any comments before
> tomorrow EoB so I can go ahead and submit the same.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nagendra
> >
> >
> > From: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 8:45 AM
> > To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]
> >
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > Ok. That make sense.
> >
> > Please find the updated version and the diff.
> >
> > If everyone are in agreement, I will go ahead and submit the new version
> and ask for the chairs to consider for WGLC.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nagendra
> >
> > From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:58 PM
> > To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:58 PM
> >
> > Hi Nagendra,
> >
> > For now, since the Proto filed and the Reserved field are set to zero,
> there should be no backward compatibility issue for the implementations, at
> least for the implementation I know.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> >
> > From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:05 AM
> > To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]
> >
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > Hi Mach,
> >
> > I am fine to merge if everyone agrees. Since you are aware of an
> existing implementation, would it not create backward compatibility issue
> for the same?.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nagendra
> >
> > From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> > To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:10 AM
> >
> > Hi Greg and all,
> >
> > Indeed, seems a good idea to merge the Proto field and the Reserved
> field.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> >
> > From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:34 PM
> > To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > Dear All,
> > I think that if we want to allow that active OAM in BIER can precede
> user data, then the Proto field in the BIER OAM packet must match the Proto
> field defined in RFC 8296. But if this use case is not interesting, we can
> just merge the space into the Reserved field.
> > My $.02
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:38 PM Mach Chen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Nagendra,
> >
> > I just got a confirmation that an implementation is using 4 bit Proto
> field L
> >
> > Actually, the proto filed in Echo Req/Rep is useless, why not we just
> remove it?
> >
> > In addition, read the draft again, the common OAM header defines a OAM
> Message Length, but in the Bier Ping Echo Request/Reply, there is no such a
> length field, seems they are not consistent.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> >
> > From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:28 AM
> > To: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > Hi Mach,
> >
> > Since you mentioned that there are implementation, I cancelled the
> submission to confirm if the Proto field extension from 4 to 6 bits is ok
> or if it will break any existing implementation?.
> >
> > Co-Authors,
> >
> > Please confirm the same so we can either revert or go ahead with the
> changes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nagendra
> >
> >
> > From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:07 PM
> > To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> > Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-To: Nagendra Kumar <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
> > Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:06 PM
> >
> > Hi Nagendra,
> >
> > Thanks for the updates, it looks good to me.
> >
> > IMHO, this version is very stable, should we ask WGLC? In addition, I
> know there are some implementations, in order to avoid potential code point
> conflicts, should we ask early code point allocation as well?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> >
> > From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 4:50 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: draft-ietf-bier-ping
> >
> > Hi Co-Authors,
> >
> > Please find the updated version that incorporates the comments from the
> Shepherd (Mankamana) and the affiliation update for one of the authors.
> >
> > I will be submitting the new version by tomorrow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nagendra
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>