Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot, Lou

[ Would have been nice if you could have commented a bit earlier. 
  But i can understand how a few years is not enough time ;-P 
  (actually no kidding, i really can.) ]

Originally i had planned to address the explanations you are missing
in this doc in the BIER-TE traffic engineering framework document,
for which i had written the -00 version and presented at TEAS WG, IETF101,
but given how we first wanted to get BIER-TE out as RFC, i let that
expire, and in hindsight it's certainly useful to have a short
section summarizing this in the BIER-TE RFC itself:

So, I just pushed -06 of the draft to address your concerns with
additional explanations.
Summary below, diff here:

http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-06.txt

- Title changed from "Traffic Engineering for..." to "Path Engineering
  for...", but kept name BIER-TE (see below). 

- Added section 1.1 explaining how BIER-TE relates to traffic
  engineering, naming use-cases where its for example beneficial standalone and
  and what it could be combined with for more comprehensive TE solutions,
  but also stating that those integrations are outside the scope of this
  document.

- changed "traffic engineering" term in the whole doc to "path engineering",
  where appropriate.

- Unrelated to you, there was one leftover fix from ietf106 review to rename BIER-TE
  Controller Host to just BIER-TE Controller

Wrt to naming: 

The mayority of customers i talked to only used RSVP-TE for path
engineering, and not for anything more. Several didn't even know it
can do bandwidth reservation. Nobody knew it could do latency
guarantees, because nobody knows an implementation that supports that.
[All reasons btw. why replacing RSVP-TE with SR happened in the industry.]

In any case, the name BIER-TE was selected to reduce confusion
with customers, not to maximize naming correctness in IETF.
Something like "BIER-PE" (Path Engineering) would have
probably confused more than it would have helped.  Think
of the justification for the name BIER-TE not as
"all you need to do TE", but "the variation of BIER to support TE".

Wrt to SR:

SR can actually NOT do the same as BIER-TE. It has no stateless multicast.
All the SR options do really require that you set up multicast trees with
e.g.: replication-SIDs that together form the equivalent of a
multicast tree, like you would have built with RSVP-TE. Except that
the signaling how to build the tree is left for someone else, like
PCECC. (AFAIK, i may not be on top of all details). In BIER-TE,
there is no such per-tree state on transit nodes.

Instead of a 256 bit bitstring in BIER-TE think of a header with up to 256 SIDs
(e.g.: 128 bit per SID in SRv6). That would be the SR equivalent of BIER-TE.
Just a bit less ( ;-) ) less efficient on the wire than BIER-TE and extremely
harder to parse. 

Cheers
    Toerless


On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:38:38PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     I have no issue or objection to the mechanisms being defined in this
> document as much as they go, but I was quite disappointed that despite the
> name of the document and use of 'bier-te'  to see that the document doesn't
> define any traffic engineering support, at least as far as the term has been
> used in IETF RFCs.  In particular it totally lacks any discussion of
> resources usage and/or allocation.  What it currently describes certainly
> provides good and useful path/traffic steering that can be used to support
> policy-based routing.  Basically it does the same as what is defined by
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy.
> 
> I personally (not speaking for the related WGs that I chair) would prefer to
> see this document be revised  to include resource allocation that would
> allow BIER-TE to support TE usage such as DetNet.  Barring such an addition,
> I'm against publication of this document as is and I think the document
> should be recast and renamed to be aligned with the SR example, i.e., BIER
> routing policy (or path steering).
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 2/18/20 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> > Thanks Toerless and Jeffrey
> > 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/
> > 
> > One more week of WGLC. Please read the latest rev and respond to this
> > thread w/wo support.
> > 
> > Chairs
> > (Shep)
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> > <zzhang=[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > 
> >     Hi Toerless,
> > 
> >     Thanks!
> >     I support moving this to the next stage.
> > 
> >     Jeffrey
> > 
> >     On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:42:38PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >     > Thanks Jeff
> >     >
> >     > I have now pushed out -05 with the answers and hopefully
> >     resolution to
> >     > your points in email below.  Biggest addition was a section about
> >     > reuse of BPs (without DNR) which came out of the confusion i
> >     think the
> >     > reuse in the ECMP example raised. I was afraid so far to explan
> >     that
> >     > as it may not be easy to absorb and ultimately is stuff only
> >     > controller developers need to understand, but hopefully useful.
> >     > And then of course the summary of BP optimizatins you asked for
> >     >
> >     > Diff from last version i sent you:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> >     > **Araw.githubusercontent.com
> >     <http://Araw.githubusercontent.com>*toerless*bier-te-arch*master*draft-ietf-b
> >     > ier-te-arch-05.1.txt&url2=http:**Atools.ietf.org
> >     <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te
> >     >
> >     -arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzH
> >     > OCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWX2At8V-$
> >     >
> >     > full -04 -> 05 diff:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=http:*
> >     > *Atools.ietf.org
> >     <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-04.txt&url2=http:**Atools.
> >     > ietf.org
> >     <http://ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!!NEt6yMaO-gk
> >     > !VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWancpziv$
> >     >
> >     > Comments inline below.
> >     >
> >     > Cheers
> >     >     toerless
> >     >
> >     > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 07:52:59PM +0000, Jeffrey (Zhaohui)
> >     Zhang wrote:
> >     > > I Thought u-turn is the most simple comparison leaf vs.
> >     non-leaf BFR.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> The text in the email is seriously misaligned. Looking at
> >     the picture in the diff link, while you gave a U-turn example,
> >     though even if BFER2 is not connected to BFR2  but only connected
> >     to BFER1 (hence no U-turn), then BFER1 is still not a leaf BFER I
> >     suppose. That's why I said the first sentence of the above
> >     paragraph is enough to define Leaf BFER while the example itself
> >     is actually not needed.
> >     >
> >     > Argh... ok, had to fix two words, BFIR->BFER and left-hand ->
> >     right-hand:
> >     >
> >     > Consider how redundant disjoint traffic can reach BFER1/BFER2 in
> >     above
> >     > picture: When BFER1/BFER2 are Non-Leaf BFER as shown on the
> >     right hand
> >     > side, one traffic copy would be forwarded to BFER1 from BFR1,
> >     but the
> >     > other one could only reach BFER1 via BFER2, which makes BFER2 a
> >     > non-Leaf BFER. Likewise BFER1 is a non-Leaf BFER when forwarding
> >     > traffic to BFER2
> >     >
> >     > > Zzh> Additionally, in left part of the picture you added, if
> >     some failure leads to BFR2 to be only reachable via BFER1, then
> >     BFER1 is no longer a leaf BFER.
> >     >
> >     > Added sentence:
> >     >
> >     > <t>Note that the BFER in the left hand picture are only
> >     guaranteed to
> >     > be leaf-BFR by fitting routing configuration that prohibits transit
> >     > traffic to pass through a PE, which is commonly applied in these
> >     > topologies.</t>
> >     >
> >     > > I assume you don't reassign BPs when links go up and down.
> >     >
> >     > I didn't want to discuss that option in this document. Its
> >     obviously
> >     > perfectly feasible, but be yet a big amount of text (especially the
> >     > considerations how to do this make-before-break. Future doc.
> >     >
> >     > > > but subsequent polarization example confuses me. It seems
> >     that BP 0:6 is assigned to the routed adjacency BFR10 (which is
> >     actually talked about in Section 4.8).
> >     > >
> >     > > Section 4.7 does not mention "routed" at all, so there are no
> >     routed adjacencies at all used in 4.7. So i am not sure what you
> >     are confused about.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> "The BIFT of each BFR are only populated with BPs that
> >     are adjacent to the BFR in the BIER-TE topology".
> >     >
> >     > Correct text from the introduction. Ok.
> >     >
> >     > > Zzh> Since the same 0:6 is in BIFTS of BFR1/BFR2/BFR3 (and I
> >     suppose in BFR4~BFR9 as well even though not drawn), I assumed
> >     it's for the "MP2P" routed adjacency to R10; though I then ruled
> >     that out - but I don't know what 0:6 represent now on BFR1, BFR2,
> >     and BFR3.
> >     >
> >     > Ah. Ok. I thought i could strip down the example to show only the
> >     > adjacencies relevant to the following discusion, but seemingly this
> >     > can introduce the confusion you have.
> >     >
> >     > So i completed the example with the BP assignment acoss all
> >     nodes, but
> >     > added text pointing to a new section further down to discuss the
> >     > re-use of BP for which thi picture is also an example.
> >     >
> >     > (check out the diff, new reuse text to long to copy inline).
> >     >
> >     > > The whole purpose of the ECMP BPs is of course to save bits,
> >     otherwise we'd give each link a separate BP, which would be 6 BP
> >     to reach to BFR4...BFR7 from BFR1.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> The trouble I am having is that the same 0:6 is assigned
> >     to different things and it's present on all BFR1/BFR2/BFR3. It is
> >     perhaps an intentional smart design but I have not wrapped my mind
> >     around it. It's apparently different from the link bundle case, so
> >     better separate it out and elaborate it (including the DNR flag
> >     that might be needed here - If the packet arrives on BFR1 with
> >     0:6, would the BP reset when it is sent to BFR2/3)?
> >     >
> >     > Yes, there was the bug of reusing BP 0:6 across sequential BFR
> >     along
> >     > the path, but now the example correctly reuses separate BP at
> >     > different stages of the paths (BP 0:6 on BFR1, BP 0:7 on
> >     BFR2/BFR3) and so on.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks!
> >     >
> >     > > > 4.8.  Routed adjacencies
> >     > > >
> >     > > > If I understand it correctly, there is a BP assigned to
> >     L1/L2/L3
> >     > > > respectively (p2p link), and then there are BPs assigned to
> >     MP2P tunnels (routed adjacency from every BFR) to the L1/L2/L3
> >     interface addresses and loopback addresses on BFR2/3.
> >     > >
> >     > > Ok that wasn't quite the read i expected. Let me clarify the
> >     text/picture:
> >     > >
> >     > >                    ...............
> >     > >          ...BFR1--...           ...--L1-- BFR2...
> >     > >                   ... .Routers. ...--L2--/
> >     > >          ...BFR4--...           ...------ BFR3...
> >     > >                    ...............         |
> >     > >                                           LO
> >     > >                     Network Area 1
> >     > >
> >     > > Assume the requirement in the above picture is to explicitly
> >     steer traffic flows that have arrived at BFR1 or BFR4 via a
> >     shortest path in the routing underlay "network area 1" to one of
> >     the following three next segments: (1) BFR2 via link L1, (2) BFR2
> >     via link L2, (3) via BFR3.
> >     > >
> >     > > To achieve this, both BFR1 and BFR4 are set up with a
> >     forward_routed adjacency BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on
> >     link L1, another forward_routed BitPosition towards an address of
> >     BFR2 on link L2 and a third forward_routed Bitposition towards a
> >     node address LO of BFR3.
> >     > >
> >     > > Does this clear ip the confusion ?
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> The picture is badly misaligned. I'll wait till 4.7
> >     questions are cleared.
> >     >
> >     > Ok.
> >     >
> >     > > > If BFR2/3 are also BFERs, then they additionally will have
> >     BFER BPs.
> >     > > > On BFR1/4, the BIFT entries for the MP2P BPs for the
> >     L1/L2/L3/loopback interface addresses of BFR2/3 will use
> >     forward_routed(interface/loopback address). For a packet to be
> >     decapsulated on a BFER, there is a need for both the BFER BP and
> >     another BP (p2p/lan/hub-spoke/routed-adjacency) in the packet (the
> >     former is for decapsulation and the latter is for getting it there).
> >     > >
> >     > > This is not discussed in this section, but you are right - unless
> >     > > BFR2 or BFR3 is a leaf BFR. In that case, it would just
> >     leverage the one shared "leaf-BFR" BP, so they do not need a
> >     per-BFER BP for local_decap().
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> Right - shared leaf-BFR BP but still need that BP (the
> >     key is that we need a BP to get packet to a BFER and then a BP for
> >     decapsulation).
> >     >
> >     > You got it.
> >     >
> >     > > > If that???s the case, it???s worth point the above out.
> >     > >
> >     > > Hmm... The logic of BFER BPs is totally independent of the
> >     logic of forward_routed adjacency, so i would worry that repeating
> >     the explanation of BFER BPs would conflate the forward_routed
> >     explanation.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> It's just that this is a place where all kinds of BPs are
> >     used so it's good to have a summary (could be a subsection 4.9).
> >     >
> >     > Yes, added such a summary. Pls. check.
> >     >
> >     > > > Actually, the reason that I thought this is MP2P is that 0:6
> >     is present on R1, R2, and R3 (and more I assume) in Figure 12, but
> >     now I think it can???t be MP2P (so it is not correct to have 0:6
> >     present on those routers ??? only the p2p tunnel head/tail should
> >     have the BP present in the BIFT). The reason is that if it were
> >     MP2P, any router getting a copy will send it to the endpoint of
> >     the routed adjacency, causing lots of duplicates.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Am I getting this correct?
> >     > >
> >     > > I think you are still explaining from the misunderstsanding
> >     that the ECMP explanations where about routed adjacencies.
> >     > >
> >     > > I have now expanded the somewhat terse text in the BIFT table
> >     pictures, to make it clear that the ECMP is across multipe
> >     forward_connected adjacencies in the examples. For example, first
> >     BIFT picture:
> >     > >
> >     > >   BIFT entry in BFR1:
> >     > >
> >      ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     > >   | Index |  Adjacencies                  |
> >     > >
> >      ==================================================================
> >     > >   | 0:6   |  ECMP({forward_connected(L1, BFR2),                 |
> >     > >   |       |        forward_connected(L2, BFR2),                 |
> >     > >   |       |        forward_connected(L3, BFR2)}, seed)       
> >          |
> >     > >
> >      ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     > >
> >     > > Of course, an ECMP adjacency can be across any type of
> >     adjacencies, but all the text/explanations used forward_connected,
> >     and now the pictures show that explicitly.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> I can understand the multi-link case, but the multi-hop
> >     ECMP case (from BFR1 towards BFR10) is confusing me. It would help
> >     to give an example how it can be used, WITHOUT worrying about
> >     polarization.
> >     >
> >     > Please check -05 text that has the full set of BIFT listed now:
> >     >
> >     > There is  really nothing nothing unique in multi-hop ECMP for
> >     BIER-TE
> >     > that we do not also have in any other ECMP, except the
> >     conclusion that
> >     > we want to support fast HW hash mechanisms AND allow the
> >     controller to
> >     > set up non-polarized multi-hop ECMP AND be able to precalculate
> >     paths.
> >     > Hence the specification of ECMP adjacencies to have a controller
> >     > configurable seed.
> >     >
> >     > Btw: The picture is maybe unnecessarily large because i've used
> >     it for
> >     > 20 years to explain the same polarization issue for unicast vs
> >     > multicast, and for multicast only BFR10...BFR4 are relevant
> >     (ECMP of
> >     > the PIM/mLDP joins), whereas for unicast/BIER only
> >     > BFR1...BFR7 are relevant. But being symmetric, the picture makes it
> >     > clear its the same problem.
> >     >
> >     > > >    To inhibit looping in the face of such physical
> >     misconfiguration,
> >     > > >    only forward_connected adjacencies are permitted to have
> >     DNR set, and
> >     > > >    the link layer destination address of the adjacency
> >     (e.g.  MAC
> >     > > >    address) protects against closing the loop.  Link layers
> >     without port
> >     > > >    unique link layer addresses should not be used with the
> >     DNR flag set.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > It???s not clear how link layer address helps?
> >     > >
> >     > > I have expanded this to
> >     > > "link layer port unique unicast destination address"
> >     > >
> >     > > Aka: MPLS or ethernet have unique link layer destination
> >     destination addresses (label or destination MAC). If you think
> >     about incorrectly plugged HDLC links (such as old T1/T3/...
> >     links), they only have 2 generic addresses, if i remember 1 or 3
> >     in the HDLC frame. So when you misplug one of those p2p cables
> >     wrong, the packets would be incrrectly received by the wrong
> >     receiver node and then DNR could cause persistent loops only
> >     solved by TTL.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> "Consider in the ring picture that link L4 from BFR3 is
> >     plugged into the L1 interface of BFRa" - still not sure how
> >     label/mac helps here. I suppose the ring topology is
> >     discovered/verified by the control plane and when the miscalling
> >     happens then the ring will not include the BFR1/BFR2 part and BFR3
> >     will not have the DNR set? If ring discovery/varication is not
> >     done then perhaps we should point out that RPF based on link layer
> >     address is needed - the key is RPF (which needs unique link layer
> >     address)?
> >     >
> >     > Forget RPF. BIER(-TE) has no RPF (issues). Its just like
> >     unicast. RPF
> >     > is just a problem for receiver originated joins like in
> >     PIM/mLDP, but
> >     > not unicast/bier(-te)/RSVP-TE.
> >     >
> >     > Forward_connected is just like a unicast subnet adjacency to a
> >     direct
> >     > neighbor: Interface and L2 addresss of the destination.
> >     >
> >     > The controller (could be a human) "assumes" a particular physicial
> >     > topology, from telemetry/knowledge/whatever. It then calculates the
> >     > desired BIER-TE topology and pushes it down. This topology is
> >     meant to
> >     > be loop free of course wrt to the configured adjacencies.
> >     > In this BIER-TE topology, BFR3 will have a BP with the
> >     > forward_connected(L4, MAC-of-BFR2) adjacency.
> >     >
> >     > If the cable connecting to L4 is miswired, then BFR3 would still
> >     send
> >     > the packets to the MAC address of BFR2, but given how the cable
> >     > connects to some other node, these packets will be discarded by
> >     that
> >     > node. because they're just L2 unicast packets.
> >     >
> >     > I think this is equally true when we have normal BIER/MPLS enacp.
> >     > Those packets too are addressed to the unicast MAC address of the
> >     > neighbor.
> >     >
> >     > Now, if/when he controller recognizes that the physical topology
> >     has
> >     > changed, thats a completely different story and not addressed here.
> >     > Given how we assumed this was a cabling mistake, the controller
> >     would
> >     > probably only complain about the miswiring to operations but be
> >     happy
> >     > that the forwarding plane just makes packets fail instead of
> >     loop. If
> >     > this was a planned change process, then it will be similarily
> >     > convoluted as it would today be with rewiring cables in an
> >     > SR-MPLS/SRv6 topology and updating SIDs.
> >     >
> >     > > > Because the forwarding is different from BIER forwarding
> >     (because of [1] above), we might as well introduce an optimization
> >     here ??? for each BIFT, calculate the F-BM of the BIFT itself (the
> >     logical ???or??? of all the BPs presented in this BIFT) and then
> >     use (packet->bitstring & BIFT.F-BM) as the input to
> >     GetFirst/NextBitPosition(). That should skip many bits.
> >     > >
> >     > > Right. But i explicitly removed those optimizations (i had
> >     them in older draft versions) because the whole idea of this
> >     picture is solely the comparison with figure 4 of RFC8279.
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> I think it's worth point that optimization out; you can
> >     mark it optional if you want to emphasize the similarity to BIER
> >     forwarding, but since BIER forwarding does do the maskoff step, it
> >     is very efficient while BIER-TE forwarding does not it the maskoff
> >     step so this optimization is important.
> >     >
> >     > Ok. I simplified the text comparison BIER/BIER-TE wrt. to the FBM
> >     > rules [1] and [2] and added following paragraph:
> >     >
> >     > <t>In BIER, the order of BPs impacts the result of forwarding
> >     because of [1].
> >     > In BIER-TE, forwarding is not impacted by the order of BPs. It is
> >     > therefore possible to further optimize forwarding than in BIER. For
> >     > example parallelizing forwarding across multiple FPE cores or
> >     > distributed linecards does only need to examine an arbitrary
> >     subset of
> >     > BP and not evaluate the dependency between BPs.</t>
> >     >
> >     > > >    The following pseudocode is comprehensive:
> >     > > >
> >     > > > The above sentence reads a bit strange (or lacks some segue).
> >     > >
> >     > > I hope not, but maybe best left to a native english speaker
> >     (RFC-editor).
> >     > >
> >     > > The first (RFC8279) pseudocode was simplified. The second one
> >     is comprehensive. If not comprehensive, whats a good opposite of
> >     simplified ?
> >     > >
> >     > > Zzh> Perhaps "The above simplified pseudocode is elaborated
> >     further as following"?
> >     > > Zzh> Jeffrey
> >     >
> >     > Done.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks a lot.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     > > > ________________________________________
> >     > > > From: BIER [[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> >     > > > on behalf of Toerless Eckert [[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> >     > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 23:38
> >     > > > To: Mike McBride
> >     > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; BIER WG; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >     > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Thanks, Mike
> >     > > >
> >     > > > The authors also reviewed the document and concluded that it
> >     was
> >     > > > really hard to get into the document context because of too
> >     many
> >     > > > forward dependencies. We tried to fix this by adding two
> >     hopefully
> >     > > > good & basic examples into the Introduction section and
> >     using them
> >     > > > to also add a better definition of the term "BIER-TE
> >     Topology" in the Introduction.
> >     > > > Hopefully this makes readin the rest of te document smoother.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Also improved text of Abstract and refined text compariing
> >     BIER-TE with SR.
> >     > > >
> >     > > >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> >     > > > **Atools.ietf.org
> >     <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
> >     > > > tool
> >     > > > s.ietf.org
> >     <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
> >     > > > jC81
> >     > > >
> >     c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV_eTUEh
> >     > > > $
> >     > > >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https:
> >     > > > **Atools.ietf.org
> >     <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A
> >     > > > tool
> >     > > > s.ietf.org
> >     <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R
> >     > > > jC81
> >     > > >
> >     c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sNd1njcX
> >     > > > $>
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Cheers
> >     > > >     Toerless
> >     > > >
> >     > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Mike McBride wrote:
> >     > > > > How about three? I support.
> >     > > > > mike
> >     > > > >
> >     > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:42 AM Greg Shepherd
> >     <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> >     > > > > >
> >     > > > > > We cannot take two 'yes' votes and WG consensus.
> >     > > > > > Please, read and respond. If you don't support, then
> >     please vote as much publicly right here.
> >     > > > > >
> >     > > > > > Thanks,
> >     > > > > > Greg
> >     > > > > >
> >     > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Pascal Thubert
> >     (pthubert) <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> >     > > > > >>
> >     > > > > >> Support:
> >     > > > > >>
> >     > > > > >> I see great value in deterministic networks as well as
> >     IOT (with RPL).
> >     > > > > >>
> >     > > > > >> All the best,
> >     > > > > >>
> >     > > > > >> Pascal
> >     > > > > >>
> >     > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> >     > > > > >> > From: BIER
> >     > > > > >> > <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> On
> >     > > > > >> > Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> >     > > > > >> > Sent: mardi 4 juin 2019 02:03
> >     > > > > >> > To: Greg Shepherd
> >     > > > > >> > <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >     > > > > >> > Cc: BIER WG <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >     > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     > > > > >> > +1
> >     > > > > >> > Obviously support as co-author.
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     > > > > >> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:41:26PM -0700, Greg
> >     Shepherd wrote:
> >     > > > > >> > > Please read and respond to this thread w/ or w/o
> >     support.
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker..ietf.org
> >     > > > > >> > > /doc
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     /draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_s
> >     > > > > >> > > ercw ZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV9eClBj$
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/
> >     > > > > >> > > doc/
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanx
> >     > > > > >> > > s6vI b_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sD40kmtH$>
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     > > > > >> > > Vote ends 5 June 2019.
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >     > > > > >> > > Shep
> >     > > > > >> > > (chairs)
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > > >> > > BIER mailing list
> >     > > > > >> > > [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
> >     > > > > >> > > list
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eE
> >     > > > > >> > > NOs4 l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/
> >     > > > > >> > > list
> >     > > > > >> > >
> >     info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6b
> >     > > > > >> > > oAAW 4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     > > > > >> > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > > >> > BIER mailing list
> >     > > > > >> > [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
> >     > > > > >> > stin
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4
> >     > > > > >> > l_qd
> >     > > > > >> > sXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/li
> >     > > > > >> > stin
> >     > > > > >> >
> >     fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW
> >     > > > > >> > 4nrq
> >     > > > > >> > ju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> >     > > > > >
> >     > > > > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > > > BIER mailing list
> >     > > > > > [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     > > > > >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
> >     > > > > > nfo/
> >     > > > > >
> >     bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsX
> >     > > > > > F0Kw
> >     > > > > > ZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$
> >     > > > > >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
> >     > > > > > nfo/
> >     > > > > >
> >     bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju
> >     > > > > > 8UCL
> >     > > > > > OgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$>
> >     > > >
> >     > > > --
> >     > > > ---
> >     > > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     > > >
> >     > > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > > BIER mailing list
> >     > > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     > > >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >     > > > bier
> >     > > >
> >     __;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82
> >     > > > cJLD
> >     > > > FFNT2WVXWX$
> >     > > >
> >     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >     > > > bier
> >     > > >
> >     __;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiu
> >     > > > Xc8Y
> >     > > > _6sKn2KoAT$>
> >     > >
> >     > > --
> >     > > ---
> >     > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > ---
> >     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > BIER mailing list
> >     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >
> >     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> >     >
> >     __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx4
> >     > 1_jWV3YUA6D$
> > 
> >     --
> >     ---
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > 
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     BIER mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > 

> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier


-- 
---
[e-mail]