Re: [Bier] Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

Inline:


> If you think it is necessary to present the draft in IETF 108, we are very
> willing to request a time slot and introduce the progress.
>

Yes I do. I've said so in multiple email messages to you.


> The information is as follows:
>
> Draft: draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>
> Presenter: Xuesong Geng
>
> Length: 10 minutes
>

Thanks,
Greg


> Best Regards
>
> Xuesong
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shepherd [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:21 PM
> *To:* Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>; BIER WG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>
>
>
> Geng,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the new version. Please leave all adoption calls on the list to
> the Chairs. Additionally, it doesn't require adoption for participants to
> read and comment. And any call for adoption should come after there has
> been adequate time for the group to read and evaluate. But more
> importantly, you and I spoke about your draft getting adequate time for
> discussion at the upcoming WG meeting. This will give you yet another
> attempt to build support and make your case for adoption to the group.
> Please stay focused on your upcoming presentation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shep,
>
> (Chairs)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> We are not calling for adoption by ourselves, as the subject shows, we are
> “requesting WG adoption”. What we are trying to do is just inviting more
> people to review the draft, and at the same time, we are glad to see that
> quite some of them are interested in this topic and would like to show
> their support in the mailing list.
>
> I agree that technical comments are very important for us. Actually, there
> have been a lot of technical discussions about this draft in WG, and we
> have updated the draft based on these comments, including:
>
> 1.      Whether IPv6 Extensions defined in the draft are reasonable and go
> along with RFC 8200 (especially section 4.2 “options”, section 4.6
> “Destination Options Header”) and other IPv6 rules:
>
> -        We have taken the draft to 6MAN mailing list and asked for review
> and advice twice, respectively in March and July; There is no objection in
> 6MAN and all we get is positive voice;
>
> 2.      How to support BIER OAM:
>
> -        In section 3.1 of the document, we have updated the descriptions
> about how to use “Proto” field, what is the relationship between “Proto”
> and “Next Header” and what has been updated compared to RFC8296 Section
> 2.1.1 ;
>
> 3.      Security Considerations:
>
> -        We have added “section 5 security” , giving instructions to
> handle with different kinds of possible security threats;
>
> 4.      Concerns about using unicast IPv6 address to convey multicast
> packet:
>
> -        We have added Appendix C to explain why it works and what
> benefits it will bring;
>
> 5.      Is there any requirement for BIERv6 ?
>
> -        Yes. With the deployments of SRv6 for unicast, operators are
> searching for stateless multicast solution in IPv6 domain, aligning with
> the design of SRv6.
>
> -        Yes. A lot of operators love the idea of “Native IPv6 BIER” and
> think it is a promising solution that could be used in the IPv6 network.
>
> -        We believe that the idea of BIERv6 will be very helpful to the
> further development of BIER and IPv6.
>
> Besides these aspects, we are always open to any other technical comments
> on the list.
>
> If you have any suggestions about how to move the document forward, please
> also let us know.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Xuesong
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Przygienda [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2020 4:08 PM
> *To:* Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* BIER WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Request for WG Adoption//FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>
>
>
> <as chair>
>
>
>
> To make it perfectly clear, it is not up to the authors and only within
> the chairs' competence to call for adoption so save yourself any +1 here
> please as they serve no further purpose @ this point in time. Technical
> discussion on the draft is obviously welcome on the list.
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> --- tony
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:31 AM Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear BIER WG,
>
>
>
> We have published a new version of draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08*,
> and we would like to request WG adoption for the document.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Xuesong
>
> ----
>
> Per the direction of WG, we have asked 6man’s review. We’ve received all
> positive comments with some great editorial suggestions.
>
> In this version, we have updated the document based these feedback:
>
> 1.      Reasonability of using IPv6 unicast address is confirmed, so extra
> descriptions in section 3.2 are removed and put into Appendix C;
>
> 2.      A diagram showing BIERv6 packet processing in an IPv6 domain is
> added in section 4 to show how a BIERv6 packet goes through a non-BIER IPv6
> node;
>
> 3.      Descriptions about the relationship between BIERv6 and BIER are
> added in Appendix A; The corresponding control plane extensions are added
> in Appendix B;
>
> The document have also addressed all the concerns that has been raised in
> BIER WG:
>
> 1.      How BIERv6 could support BIER architecture defined in RFC 8279,
> including OAM;
>
> 2.      How BIERv6 security is guaranteed;
>
> 3.      The technical benefits brought by BIERv6;
>
> After all the updates , we believe the document is ready for WG adoption.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 2:26 PM
>
> > To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <[e-mail]>; Gengxuesong (Geng
>
> > Xuesong) <[e-mail]>; Rajiv Asati <[e-mail]>; Liang
>
> > Geng <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra
>
> > <[e-mail]>; MooChang Shin <[e-mail]>;
>
> > Senthil Dhanaraj <[e-mail]>; Yongqing Zhu
>
> > <[e-mail]>; Mike McBride <[e-mail]>;
>
> > Zhuangzhuang Qin <[e-mail]>
>
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A new version of I-D, draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>
> > has been successfully submitted by Xuesong Geng and posted to the IETF
>
> > repository.
>
> >
>
> > Name:            draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
>
> > Revision:        08
>
> > Title:               Encapsulation for BIER in Non-MPLS IPv6 Networks
>
> > Document date:   2020-07-13
>
> > Group:            Individual Submission
>
> > Pages:            21
>
> > URL:
>
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08.txt
>
> > Status:
>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation/
>
> > Htmlized:
>
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>
> > Htmlized:
>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation
>
> > Diff:
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-xie-bier-ipv6-encapsulation-08
>
> >
>
> > Abstract:
>
> >    This document proposes a BIER IPv6 (BIERv6) encapsulation for Non-
>
> >    MPLS IPv6 Networks using the IPv6 Destination Option extension
>
> >    header.  This document updates RFC 8296.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
>
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> >
>
> > The IETF Secretariat
>
> >
>
>
>
>