IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] BitStringLengths in draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Wed, 09 August 2017 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA00813226B for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nU99B2YOUTuQ for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F1E132195 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t201so6575972wmt.1 for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g0PYl597PEK25mh9er2SMLxhflG5Oo/2d36xvyku76U=; b=uzQn80KAgD8oXOHGNkHlJsTBMZKeEWK2IatUa91rFA+ciuKJlSV5YUOkQ3KzQCNveC E8fItXNpzCfOgwXmIMOMX2nYresc2XwhBgJ3FRSxaeH/RGB6EVYCuAYb3qo1lz4aD1Uz 6OAHBN3jgvdFsJrtcExEduvBvJ7+GygDpqhX1DSC+E4s3WKkdKvIlRkUYVBD3yT+4Fly F1DWGCAkbCaILx7Dz+zfEzfT7qGObS8S2utbBe2tt9w2Ef3vzackgP5OMto2Jqwnn8jm 0UgCS4xhxVhuosFSNTOlaUe912uc+44V5UaP0q6O51aJBvcIotQxq6bGUzXJp+otf0r3 +etA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g0PYl597PEK25mh9er2SMLxhflG5Oo/2d36xvyku76U=; b=q2SgY06BSsAytzi3kxZ6R3QM2ShQ4zEeaEJz/0M3PfS7kn7u6C/xEDM6nZWD27t0zl JNEqUSPKqgSQja0OCakOmleQ6KjpnVi6l0UwN2lRXxsf7750Qn0eTYhr3L6znUqTVRZn 9ZhPXljGamcWtYyQp1/5C4wKyQMf6jlVl8+bGPUKKo2xQ71WgXu1dz0isQe+fjkDtre4 yTh9xVmTH2RAfzo+OPs7FvqWVpZnzT6na/37F54ReiCdm2npJ24OzTfs1a1U/ho3rBF4 ijQ4ACjPWgcP/MyDjek86VHugzPPWdCNgDpZLRlFCZ6J1zGgMfkDuwm2v5zy10LBdFZs mQ5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5iKvb+TFr6GvqFkiVpqipjaelUJ679pZ5Zop22zaKXuBOYVPVq3 DsF2kJTh1quXP//6hYPC9B7Z+FBLEw==
X-Received: by 10.80.143.101 with SMTP id 92mr9538440edy.68.1502316866333; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.145.204 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5617CDBE-E205-4E21-92F2-CDEFD07EDA06@cisco.com>
References: <7E91C246-6077-4172-A37C-C9B89AF92858@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rdE7GB-JX119r8Pc70isYsiaXGCKSRHEkYG9LgF4rzgRA@mail.gmail.com> <7fba9717-b87d-ccd4-84b6-2e605ac0becf@juniper.net> <CBC90D43-13A5-4DC9-B905-D78E6BDD3701@nokia.com> <VI1PR0701MB2351909836CA27DEBBE6E0B0918B0@VI1PR0701MB2351.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <E69F7F07-A311-49C4-92C4-85D220181B6F@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hM2PxU48G=e7MmHWwqYca5JbvGNLGpSW2CkFDC1r02jzA@mail.gmail.com> <5617CDBE-E205-4E21-92F2-CDEFD07EDA06@cisco.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:13:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hP7iisg+5odzc+VHVjW0iPn_2aFRLZ1ktDU0ubSNefYmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
Cc: "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, "BIER (bier@ietf.org)" <bier@ietf.org>, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1959fc2871b205565967b7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/hQJfH_OXp7x6kL7EtnNFsxrQCLs>
Subject: Re: [Bier] BitStringLengths in draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:14:30 -0000

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:36 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> wrote:

> Tony,
>
> > 1. As a matter of principle yes, one of my usual pony horses,
> "architecture should not overspecify a technology" and that applies here.
> the architecture doc would be better served without that clause.
>
> Great, lets change it!
>
> > 3. Removing the restriction must not, IMO, result in a complete new WG
> LC and IESG review albeit Greg has to write a new Ops section which will
> probably make both prudent nevertheless
>
> We’ve been working on this architecture for a few years now, and this
> document is the MAIN architecture for BIER. If we discovered an mistake
> before its published as RFC, lets fix it now. If WG LC and IESG will add a
> 4 month delay, who cares?
>
>
OK, I go along with your arguments.

Alia, how much of LC do we have to rerun after the section is removed from
arch + ops added & section is added to encaps doc?

But do not forget the 2) !

--- tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email