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

Gyan Mishra <> Tue, 30 March 2021 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4B33A1EB8; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KKM1grqUM2XX; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622E83A1EB3; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id lr1-20020a17090b4b81b02900ea0a3f38c1so1766036pjb.0; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:04:53 -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=ibAJZEPnzAKo1lhbA1aIj8SOsRx91eYgacbjRYpgqFw=; b=NJxLbj8MPzwKOxz1P/XmO36puEmzWE5QFMzRMpqEJUH1CkT27g34Hf8WMjXolLNctH ctbKdpUhCaYHLi2I35titgdTLahC8NmxiQw6zzkeVKbwbS9XqwYxCDcd+2YkZK3FYmon wRO5T1qOeHlr2BjVON7VSgFxnzaoyFoPUoJd9BNjVdaYl7/oHljNkNdyqxR9kjM2YUkt QQXYIF1reA9iIetaSXPT7uTHS72GldkCM+VxhNYUBLDqYXcTGW2oPUhz8HsRyfLrcB9j wc00uTW8UPhb+4zTXdNHXrCyHzu7NoNbnKyzV4EL754M9EF1NNTbH90beApXqQ9uJyED egJQ==
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=ibAJZEPnzAKo1lhbA1aIj8SOsRx91eYgacbjRYpgqFw=; b=hFD5Dxehh4OHPXKmza0P9YEKwK/CbCcCm50fGKi1guC+WB9veDfo0vFXmEUcvTuEd8 Wg45ob95RLrsJHtQP7TkjgtyS0UOU5/tXtEIe09KfRyqfOAOqHUEX+M9Epgi7QaNpQD5 CLMCTRVacPom7O983zSW0scnP0dnvH7qjJUwLM7b7Nqm0cDYa/qa2jAEjt7jy63JO3SG KGZYEwoRFEJmeAtNvdfXxz2iRJirro3uHdGE248LQRbVMKVzXmZkj8z/NQgChoM9SDIo DVa9/mdy85Yju5TfL3axLdiLOVGKrpfOLQgTRd8ZFc+wWj+CpInRfNqTzB69+l83xZMK 8dfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hDOIkwQg4Tgn3z7l5QcWOXlePPSyn7+J0DazxSwOQH/9uZLah GX6GdhkAXmVCygbovg65KFCHo5EhK2P0bjryuEU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJ4W7nhVW7mdvaHSAHJAMvqmdBvaUmBBxdChNOjwCyAabc8bStIk7wMf0MVVd3oN9lJQiW6RfSYCEndgtuwVQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2358:: with SMTP id ms24mr5581644pjb.132.1617131092008; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:04:41 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Tony Przygienda <>
Cc: BIER WG <>, BIER WG Chairs <>, "" <>, Huaimo Chen <>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>, Michael McBride <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b633805bec5ac9e"
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:04:58 -0000

With the merged document would we keep as informational or make standards

Since BIER-FRR does provide FRR capability without an IGP using a separate
FRR-BIFT which could be envisioned as a SDN PCE CC control based solution
that would be new innovative solution that is not provided by the Merling
IGP tunnel based IP LFA  draft.

In that sense BIER-FRR could stand on its own for adoption strictly on
those grounds.

Another option could be to update Merling as informational for IGP based
tunnel or IP LFA local protection FRR and proceed with adoption of BIER-FRR
for non IGP based FRR solution.  That would circumvent any scalability
issues that are being asked as the non IGP based scenario would be
typically a smaller BIER domain.

Kind Regards


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:32 PM Tony Przygienda <> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:28 PM Michael McBride <
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with Jeffrey. The two drafts should be merged into a new draft,
>> which we will then call to adopt. I suggest that the authors of each of the
>> two docs:
>> A difficult road getting a draft accepted in bier lately despite
>> seemingly strong consensus. We will have an -03 published in the next day
>> or two and if you feel the need to issue a new adoption call please do so.
> Mike, it's your interpretation AFAIS so please do not try to introduce
> contention where I don't see any. Nothing "difficult" here. I think the
> draft had a lot of interest and generally positive response. Not many
> drafts get that, especially attention. Even better we get the previous
> draft joined together so we can incorporate both models people pursue in a
> clear framework. As to technical objections, they need be discussed and
> resolved and/or documented clearly in the draft, that's the point of the
> process.
> As per my take as simplest way forward we should join previous drafts and
> republish into -huaimo-frr which will become draft-ietf-bier-frr anyway
> when adopted after the merge so really, what's the difference before one
> individual draft or another ending up as ietf-bier-frr except bits of
> history [although I admit this may be important to some people] ;-) And of
> course authorship has to be apportioned fairly so people are given clear
> credit for the work and ideas. That's important.
> Since the drafts are being joined I would also like the authors of merged
> draft to suggest one or max two committed editors or otherwise see a clear
> pen holding here, especially, even if the draft ends up informational, this
> is a framework that should be well written and written in a unified way
> because it will get quite a lot of reading in the ongoing years I think.
> thanks
> -- tony
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*