Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <> Fri, 11 June 2021 11:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FB23A349B for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 04:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jA_F7M7yi5-y for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 04:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79A93A3499 for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 04:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4G1dv46mvXz6L7Gh; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:30:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:40:05 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:40:03 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 19:40:03 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <>
To: Martin Vigoureux <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
Thread-Index: AQHXViELnk5x8V3Q7kW0oPV5AOVsY6sOvfwA
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:40:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
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: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:40:17 -0000

Dear Martin,

We've responded to the summary from chairs on that thread. I think it reflects the key technical differences between us and the chairs. 
>From chairs' point of view, BIERv6 violates BIER architecture, which is L2 in nature and should not be IPv6/SRv6 dependent.
>From our point of view, BIERv6 does not violate BIER architecture, which should be interpreted by RFC8279 text instead of other informal interpretation.

For the detailed technical points in the BIERv6 solution, we think they have been checked carefully in BIER WG and other WGs for long time, and have been proven by implementation and test.
Also there are solid requirements from industry to have well-adapted BIER solution in IPv6/SRv6 network. 

We seek for your guidance to move our work forward in IETF. We would like to propose two options about what should be done in the next step: 
1) Consider to adopt BIERv6 in BIER WG, if BIERv6 complies with BIER architecture.
2) Move BIERv6 work to other WG, e.g., PIM or SPRING, if BIERv6 does not comply with BIER architecture. 

Thank you very much for your help.


-----Original Message-----
From: BIER [] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:29 PM
Subject: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints


First, I'd like to apologize for the time this has taken.

I have reviewed the two formal complaints that were sent early March, and I have also reviewed most of the e-mails that were sent on the bier mailing list for the past 12 months or so, relating to BIER and IPv6.

I will not individually discuss the various points raised, rather I will make a general statement.

It is my opinion that a certain number of points are not critical (in the sense of not needing an AD to step-in) and some typically happen sometimes as part of the life cycle of WGs. Yet, I do recognize that some points are more problematic than others.
Further, it is my opinion that the points listed may arise from a variety of intentions and as such it is hazardous to associate them with a particular one.
It is however my opinion that the multiplicity of concerns is, in itself, a concern.
I have talked with the chairs. They do recognize that, at some occasions, their communication was not the most effective one, and I trust they will pay attention to that in the future.

About the adoption poll on draft-zhang-bier-bierin6. Although the way this was handled raised some concerns, I'd like to remind that an adoption poll is not formally part of our processes, even if it is common practice, and in fact it only marks the start of the WG discussion. As such, I have little arguments to go back on this.

The last part is about the progress of a so-called BIER v6 solution. 
Here, I have asked the chairs to establish a summary of the discussions regarding that type of solution in general and regarding the specific document which proposes a solution. They should publish it some time after this e-mail.

Following that, it is my expectation that the WG has a fair and open discussion, ideally focussing on the general aspects, and then concludes on the way forward.


BIER mailing list