Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

Adrian,

It is the conclusion of the WG that creating a layer dependency -
fusion/melding of overlay forwarding layer, BIER forwarding layer, and
lower transport layer - would take the standard in the wrong direction.
Replication has been bound to unicast forwarding planes for more than 30
years. BIER has finally brought a dedicated, independent replicating
forwarding plane to the Internet Architecture. It would be irresponsible to
ignore the original concerns that started BIER on the Experimental Track
now that it has just started to develop on the Standards Track.

The BIER WG will be updating RFC 8279 and has already a list of volunteers
for the task, but you are welcome to join. This work should be published
shortly and I encourage you to contribute your scrutiny to that draft when
available.

Thanks for your help,
Greg

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:36 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Greg,
>
>
>
> Is it necessary to take a hostile and aggressive approach to these
> discussions? I am sure you are frustrated and want to move forward, but it
> feels like you are shutting down discussions rather than trying to resolve
> them.
>
>
>
> Telling someone that they are “unwilling to work collaboratively within
> the group” is probably not conducive to encouraging them to work
> collaboratively.
>
>
>
> My understanding was that the AD has engaged with you to work on the
> clarity of your communication, and your email is certainly very clear. But
> I don’t think it is very nice. We look to those in leadership positions to
> set the tone for the work in the IETF, and you need to do better.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shepherd
> *Sent:* 17 June 2021 06:08
> *To:* Michael McBride <mmcbride@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* Xiejingrong (Jingrong) <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; bier@ietf.org;
> Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
>
>
>
> Inline:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:47 PM Michael McBride <mmcbride@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Le 2021-06-11 à 13:40, Xiejingrong (Jingrong) a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> >it appears to me that this is the discussion the WG needs to have and
> reach consensus on.
>
> My take from the chairs summary is that they believe BIERv6 is simply
> unnecessary, not that it violates the bier architecture.
>
>
>
> GS - Correct
>
>
>
> There are many of us who believe using EH for the bitstring is a great use
> of IPv6 with bier.
>
>
>
> GS - "Great use" is not a valid use-case. The WG has been asking the
> authors for years what the compelling use case is to motivate creating
> layer dependencies and we are still waiting.
>
>
>
> This was presented in 6man with positive feedback.
>
>
>
> GS - No, it was presented in 6man and the authors were told 6man had no
> issues with it from a v6 perspective but that the work needed to work
> through the BIER WG for all BIER issues. And the WG is rather exhausted at
> having to repeatedly address the same miss-represetned issues, miss-quoted
> members of other lists, and having our questions ignored. You are
> essentially DOS-ing the WG process rather than listening and collaborating.
> It's clear you are unwilling to work collaboratively within the group.
> We've tried.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the time has come to propose this work in an IPv6 EH friendly WG?
>
>
>
> GS - I trust you understand how the standards process works. Good luck.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> mike
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Jingrong
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> > Vigoureux
> > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:29 PM
> > To: bier@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints
> >
> > WG
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > BIER@ietf.org
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40fut
> > urewei.com%7C251aa4cc378a4f70fee008d92f2c3757%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a
> > 1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637592689222267034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
> > oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&am
> > p;sdata=ng78EEFJ0jNyOSdkvfv4Ic6xB3%2FpZkfY66Q%2BWdGZfIk%3D&amp;reserve
> > d=0
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C251aa4cc378a4f70fee008d92f2c3757%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637592689222277027%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=dcV1PufJOI0NEKjONjsDIKK3Ib7%2BBF7xiHasDrnGTQs%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>