Re: [Bier] Consensus call on adoption of RBS Work Into BIER WG

["Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony and WG,

As the co-author of the document, it is appreciated that BIER WG has interest in this work.
While as I have mentioned in IETF 116, maybe we should be more cautious about whether to keep RBS in BIER WG, especially from a technical point of view. The main concern here is that the forwarding hardware of RBS and BIER is totally different, although they both use bitstring to encode. The whole bitsring of BIER is used as a a key value and RBS will use only part of the bitstring as the key value, which means that the location of the exact part of the bitstring for this hop and remove the irrelevant part of the bitstring is very crucial, which is may be out of the scope of BIER WG as RFC 8279 and RFC 8296. And the chip supporting BIER can’t enable RBS directly either.
So I think it is necessary to reconsider whether RBS or similar mechanism is suitable to be directly defined in BIER.

Best
Xuesong

From: BIER [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:38 AM
To: BIER WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Consensus call on adoption of RBS Work Into BIER WG

First, the working group chairs have considered the input from the working group and believe that there is consensus to work on the use case/solution presented under the BIER WG umbrella and RBS in particular.
Second, per WG input the authors of the specific RBS draft presented under BCP 78/79 do not seem interested in an adoption call.  Any such future call will have to be considered at a later point in time. Per previous consensus, we would like to encourage submissions of alternative solutions or any other work, including work related to, or based on the submitted draft.

thanks

-- tony

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:32 PM Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
During the last IETF meeting we ended up in an interesting consensus discussion based on the Toerless “RBS Update” presentation.

After the presentation a show of hands was run (after AD indicated readiness to extend the charter to work along the lines of the use case this work addresses)

“Who would contribute to Work on RBS in BIER WG”

8 out of 15 hands went  up so it looked like enough people were interested in working out the details/viability of the solution.

After quick discussion with AD we doubled up with another quick verbal poll since the “no hand up” meaning wasn’t clear here.

“Who is objecting RBS adoption as a working group item into BIER WG ?”

And here, rather confusingly and as far as I could read the room, up to 5 hands went up in the room, mostly from people who seemed to be associated with the cluster of original proponents/contributors to RBS work.

So, we’re taking per usual IETF procedures the call to the list to see who voices support/objection to adopt RBS work into the BIER WG charter in some form or fashion.
Please refrain from “counter mails” as in +1/-1 and state specific technical objections/merits of the work and its applicability

thanks

-- tony