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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements/> There
are several drafts describing OAM solutions for BIER in advanced stages,
among those are:

   - draft-ietf-bier-ping
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ping/>
   - draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery/>
   - draft-ietf-bier-bfd
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bfd/>
               <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ping/>

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]
>>> <[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]
>>> <[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
>>>
>>>