Re: [Bier] Pls "vote" on name (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch)

I do not think we are playing games, we are i think just following the
advice a least as i understand it from the feedback received from you and Deb.

I added a section 1.1 after your first feedback explaining how this
BIER-PE draft relates to traffic engineering the best way i understand it,
but then you suggested that i should remove it again or else it would
require mayor changes (which i still expressed interest in seeing).

If you think traffic engineering support would only require an additional section
(without changes to the rest of the document ?) then i would happy to 
understand what that section would need to say and of course you are
more than welcome to contribute text.

I can not say yet if that solution makes more sense unless i understand
better what you are proposing. But i think it would be great if it did
(make more sense).

And no, i am sorry, but i did not read your preference to extend this
document to be able to claim traffic engineering from the feedback i
have seen from you so far.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Chairs/all
> 
> Rather than play games with the name why not just add the one section that's
> missing to support traffic engineering and then you can legitimately call it
> TE? (Some may have noted that this was my preference in my mail that kicked
> off this discussion.). I'm even happy to contribute text.
> 
> Doesn't this make the most sense?
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> ----------
> On February 28, 2020 11:03:04 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yepp, I concur with Greg ... tony
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:00 AM Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > My vote: BIER-TE
> > > Call it Tree Engineering. If we were so concerned with acronym overuse the
> > > IETF would grind to a halt. I've been involved in other WGs where I felt
> > > the name missed the mark describing the ideas in the draft, but felt
> > > reading the draft was how someone got their heads around the proposed
> > > solution, rather than miss-read the title and run away confused. ie -
> > > Vlex-Algo. No, it's Flex-Topo, but what's to be gained from arguing for a
> > > name at this point?
> > > 
> > > Yes, we should strive to be as 'correct' as possible. But the IETF is full
> > > of baggage that engineers have managed to wade through, make sense of, and
> > > implement successfully. Get the spec right, No #1 priority. If you don't
> > > like the name, read on. It will grow on you. :)
> > > 
> > > Shep (w/o chair hat)
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:31 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If you go with PBR, you could continue the BIER WG traditional of
> > > > selecting brew-based acronyms. Hence, that would be my vote. It could be
> > > > confused with Policy Based Routing but only if someone actually implements
> > > > it.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Acee
> > > > 
> > > > ???On 2/28/20, 9:23 AM, "BIER on behalf of Toerless Eckert" <
> > > > bier-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >     Sure, Just reply wth the ones you like whether existing or added and
> > > >     give them the weiht you like, e.g.: from your email something like:
> > > > 
> > > >     5  BIER-PBR    (Path Based Routing)
> > > >     5  BIER-PST    (Path based STeering)
> > > >     3  BIER-PE     (Path Engineering)
> > > > 
> > > >     On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 07:54:07AM +0000, Dirk Trossen wrote:
> > > >     > Toerless, all,
> > > >     >
> > > >     > May I add to the mix (which might not help) with the proposal for
> > > > 'path-based routing' (or BIER-PBR) or 'path-based steering' (or BIER-PST)?
> > > > If you want to keep a two letter acronym, I'd add 'path steering' (rather
> > > > than path engineering) to the mix. From the below, without considering any
> > > > alternatives, I'd go for BIER-PE but it comes with the issues like many two
> > > > letter acronyms, namely the higher 'collision rate' with others.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Best,
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Dirk
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     > -----Original Message-----
> > > >     > From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Toerless
> > > > Eckert
> > > >     > Sent: 27 February 2020 21:41
> > > >     > To: bier@ietf.org
> > > >     > Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; bier-ads@ietf.org; BRUNGARD,
> > > > DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>; bier-chairs@ietf.org
> > > >     > Subject: [Bier] Pls "vote" on name (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch)
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Dear WG
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Please chime in with opinions about the following or any new name
> > > > you like as the new name for BIER-TE. Timeout is deadline for submission of
> > > > draft before IETF107, when i'll post an update. If you propose a new name
> > > > try to avoid re-using abbreviations that may be misinterpreted.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > 5 = best name ever, ... 1 = lame name, no number assigned means 0
> > > > votes are just added up and maximum sum option wins.
> > > >     > Explanations if you haven't followed thread at the end.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > BIER-PE  - Path Engineering
> > > >     > BIER-ET  - Explicit Trees
> > > >     > BIER-EET - Explicit Engineered Trees
> > > >     > BIER-BET - Bit Engineered Trees
> > > >     > BIER-BST - Bit Steered Trees
> > > >     > BIER-TrE - Tree engineering
> > > >     > BIER-ET  - Engineered Trees
> > > >     > BIER-ST  - Steered Trees
> > > >     >
> > > >     > BIER-ASB - Adjacency Steering Bits   (adjacencies are how bits in
> > > > BIER-PE are defined)
> > > >     > BIER-AB  - Adjacency Bits
> > > >     > BIER-SB  - Steering Bits             (overloads with "Source Block"
> > > > - never heard)
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Thanks,
> > > >     >     Toerless
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Explanations: If you have read through the threads with Lou and
> > > > Deborah, and my understanding is correct:
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Lou desired there to be a new name so BIER-TE the
> > > > forwarding/steering mechanism (this document) is named differently from
> > > > BIER-TE the larger framework utilizing TEAS/PCE definition (separate future
> > > > draft).
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Lou did not like my "Path Engineering" proposal as the name in the
> > > > last version of the doc and felt we should pick a name with
> > > > Steering/routing-policy in it. I think usn only steering/routing would be
> > > > misleading (confused with unicast approaches).
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Deborah pointed to avoiding confusions in the name with
> > > > pre-established named (e.g.: "PE" meaning Provider Edge).
> > > >     > Said we should finalize on the name before we as the WG should pass
> > > > the document to IESG. And she asked chairs to extend last-call by one more
> > > > week (unrelated). Hence timeout end of next week.
> > > >     >
> > > >     > _______________________________________________
> > > >     > BIER mailing list
> > > >     > BIER@ietf.org
> > > >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > >     >
> > > >     > _______________________________________________
> > > >     > BIER mailing list
> > > >     > BIER@ietf.org
> > > >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > > 
> > > >     --
> > > >     ---
> > > >     tte@cs.fau.de
> > > > 
> > > >     _______________________________________________
> > > >     BIER mailing list
> > > >     BIER@ietf.org
> > > >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > BIER@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
> > 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de