Re: [Bier] BIER/IPv6 Requirements and Solutions

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On August 10, 2020 at 12:24:49 AM, Tianran Zhou  wrote:


Tianran:

Hi!  How are you?



...
> I have done a preliminary/high-level review of the requirements document
> (see details below); I don't think it currently is in a state to provide
> adequate material for WG discussion. Besides specific requirements, the
> text should include a clear justification for the WG to reach a consensus.
> The current version doesn't properly cover these aspects.
>
> ZTR> I do not agree with you. I think the requirement is straight forward
> and easy to understand. I even think there is no need for the requirement
> document for a consensus. Your comment here is very high level without any
> guidance. Could you please point out, what justification need to reach
> consensus?

[I'm assuming you're talking about the general need to run bier over
IPv6 when you characterize the requirement as "straight forward and
easy to understand."]

Given that this potential work item made it into the Charter, I also
assume that the need to run bier over an IPv6 dataplane is
straightforward.  On the other hand, the decision of which of the
multiple (and different) solutions to pursue (one, many, none ?) is
what doesn't have consensus.  I hope that my notes on the document
itself were more specific.

I will leave the discussion as to whether a requirements document is
necessary to the WG.



> The document points to the WG Charter in a couple of places as
> justification for the work. Recommendation: Focus on the technical aspects
> and not whether something is in the Charter or not! If there is WG
> consensus, a Charter can be amended to include new work. On the other hand,
> while a Charter is used to provide scope and focus, it must not be used as
> justification for doing work in the absence of discussion and consensus.
>
> ZTR> I agree with your point here. The document does not need to discuss
> about the charter. So can I say the Chairs and anybody should not block
> this work with the interpretation of current charter?

The point I tried to make above is about not blindly allowing or
blocking something just because it is in the Charter, or not.  For
both scenarios (written in the Charter or not) the important parts are
discussion and consensus.  IOW, nothing should progress if there is no
WG consensus on it.


Alvaro.