Re: [Bier] In reply to the formal complaints

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:08 AM Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Inline:
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:47 PM Michael McBride <[e-mail]>
> 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