Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

Tony Przygienda <> Thu, 17 June 2021 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290C73A141F for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjtzSgUa69A8 for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2A53A141E for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o5so492016iob.4 for <>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KEhytKqJE2qHR/8qJxr07LLeZClsKnCBhIOO73fIld4=; b=rb+o3GCI8cP/95I/i2fx8pwtIcs2KrPZf2Ho1iUuo6A6NaFZnRzbbX8bZVc33g21P+ m3KcGrqz8YQhTBPoDdpmKxaiTjc/cPfHDRQM34R1bJiIqMC/jdZKttwZclGsj9yBqk2Z dcXgU2bVvXQ5VtXeA0F1sTJRuf+lrfSkKLg70bl4sQSkfgDdcyO1FAq+UktqS/spRAhC NWhKGkc1SqSioY6apbAMgbYYJtGqucqD4Gm6WbIaYR+UxouvysT1eIuxXhIxV5/MFEey tCnHc24/kmhJd4B/sQ77mZIKQrpJs/q3bRCBvbpgG/47j3pKk7pTU6iKdwdgVfYhdJ/g wrBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KEhytKqJE2qHR/8qJxr07LLeZClsKnCBhIOO73fIld4=; b=ry9Gh1UkzLZi3qEemmRPGToatMTJhRKdFZBVGiBmNwwl1U0esTTSJlKj3e2BdrwCMZ QobI2FSA3IfqFyqnmbC8XEaUVRKeFbUZmsTqxCyMjx4KkNjZVU58HYPfnpxP8T8x81/V aWt4SUq+sCJwPWszLCfIa3wYgh+nk/xv1Fie37r9J8/abAXwNIMCZ2sEv6GeajJBOLnU NxJNhgUJ+by7z9i7TMbxFElC9CEzz7rZ8lDKxYQai90KlSp6MuAai6uk5t7sOXwXoq8Q FtW6159f03dGgUxocJoFL+bXq5laeSPA/EY9bRTMWbFX+t/PFkXRROOdQFOr36ak95EY ZEVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531v/SQ7BbQ/9xLnuO//p+S6gLA6x3vPMpK4L87CpJEZAau4zqyq nh56cie3ewgll/r3gBRqyytGNquwIfeQsPwXaJE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+1XC/yAb6yRIBDf5HLJ7TjKryeEcXUX6/1f7niTW820RDTjkKdSt/DXGTF/DBT2STyFS6aOp4xQqfK0M2N0k=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8810:: with SMTP id l16mr1880120ioj.31.1623920145380; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tony Przygienda <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:55:09 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Shepherd <>
Cc: Michael McBride <>, "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <>, "" <>, Martin Vigoureux <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068bb4a05c4f25f11"
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: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:55:51 -0000

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:08 AM Greg Shepherd <> wrote:

> Inline:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:47 PM Michael McBride <>
> 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.

IETF has documented processes, we run the WG on those. If authors don't
like the process or see it violated, it is not the job of the WG to
change/adopt/invent IETF processes until they deliver results that
rubberstamps the authors' opinions and desires and the process itself
provides recourse which the authors already took. So we had this shadowy
round-abouting key technical questions while trying to bend the processes
going for quite a long time and burning lots of cycles and patience. Then,
unless we have serious new technical arguments or answer to
use-case/necessity for non-orthogonal, layer shortcutting new encoding all
the other stuff on the thread is in fact just DoS'ing the process more and
more AFAIS.

-- tony