Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-11

Tony Przygienda <> Mon, 26 July 2021 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3CF3A0CEC; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:19:31 -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 0aIo_cTSBM-k; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C853A0CCC; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 185so13450695iou.10; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:19:26 -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=KLPMEob8bhdKMnfGKI3WxGSbS0OMJH/UhYmnOLvr+Kw=; b=ORfEIxiGRcgg1qpLm6Gf6hLAQisS0g7tBS6YEcnPOCvnqEGg/GWdPDooIUT7dStuuq 7fcyJ9klpFn6r4ptloNXxHPto9n2a4ACOGqXdQnHH3CDi/MVXccNNtxl5KyL/tjJrkQG ouBPkj1DocolnZSnW8Y0QY+AvMvRatTLg1SNFwlP+ql2aM0+m7kxUB0lDBNJybVv179E DmMbBfuPAVTrJNnQWOqDMxlwvmPzFZcENWTVwfrJQh0iUJcnl3J1NJg9fdaWEl93pxs2 SGLbIwCq9rPJB3zMv6+ni++eNtjywIi8B6hDCrv1Xag94SLAtRzPZkk/9HSCMMZzou9E GWpg==
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=KLPMEob8bhdKMnfGKI3WxGSbS0OMJH/UhYmnOLvr+Kw=; b=SwKoFoeICCqhHGwjLG7EZppJUmPFKvY7eFuqIinf47e+jGfjTC0PrVzLq3FAizEbt0 zMB5inVMFuwMUU4TUS9mB+jCpmELRYPk/5BR+BuovnG96StpNjMpuNhIDy+y65P3tptn Jc0EXz3tOfbPL47LHBjjgtpryKKle1jTd44MMTO4vxKdi2sQA19dLJv3xV7j2wNpXSkL RxU+xFlWqI4JCjEIKxVwB6tmYS3KuFReeoZq+JTICXsrEdah2s4e4Rx9dLzpKgwFFHrd rdUefT37qiZftfIeds2LyimDqB2GiECiBBHUz60oQClFR3HiUL5Rg1uirqSilUnAoyrP Lc5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530NcK4KfabnNKahhxQbmJt0CFxuoq8yeIrpPxuuzHild/dNKLA1 sqo5VMH70tRe0lfe9IzjEFtw+bN2OLB66hFLs0E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQU5drwiedCkYloPSMAAGC6+fg3ZTIS29+/g4z9lhSCOBWgO76NUCkHsUbdyBg3HVbwTInpPk6S6a/hmeCNLc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a797:: with SMTP id e23mr18273382jaj.121.1627330765001; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tony Przygienda <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:18:48 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
Cc:, Nabeel Cocker <>, BIER WG Chairs <>, BIER WG <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e1b7705c80c78fa"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-11
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:19:34 -0000

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 9:27 PM Alvaro Retana <>

> Dear authors:
> Thank you for your work and the patience through the publication process.
> I just finished reading this document -- it still needs work!   In
> general, tightening up the specification is needed -- this is a
> Standards Track document!   Also, as written, this document is not
> compliant with rfc7761 -- I included most of my concerns about this
> point in § (search for line 338).
> There are some process issues (listed in increasing severity) that I
> need the Chairs'/Shepherd's input on:
> (1) 6 authors are listed in the front page, but rfc7322 recommends a limit
> of
>     5.  Chairs: Can you please provide justification for going over the
>     limit?  [In general, I think that 6 is an ok number -- we just
> need to cross the T's...]

Alvaro, as you know, I was vocal about that authors' limit a while ago and
how IETF is lagging here. Given size of teams working in specs now and
their complexity we should change the format to a authors'  section of
arbitrary size (and drop the contributors stuff).

Here, I can only appeal to Hooman as editor to prune the author's list to
arbitrary small number >= 1 set by IETF ;-)

> (2) I didn't see a specific request from the Chairs asking the pim WG to
>     review, or them being cc'd in any of the WGLCs.  Did I miss it?  Given
>     the amount of PIM content in this document, that interaction should
> have
>     already happened.
>     I realize that there's a significant overlap in participation between
> the
>     two WGs, so I'm cc'ing pim on this message and will forward the IETF LC
>     when we get to that stage.

thanks, if Greg didn't extend a call for cross-review, please consider me
extending one.

Stig, as PIM WG chair could you pls send a call out to cross-review the

> (3) This document replaces draft-hfa-bier-pim-signaling, but that linkage
> had
>     not been indicated in the datatracker when Publication was requested.
>     The main issue with this oversight is that draft-hfa-bier-pim-signaling
>     has two IPR declarations [1].  The Shepherd's writeup says that no IPR
> had
>     been filed against this document.  Also, I didn't find an IPR poll in
> the
>     archives.
>     I have added the link between this document and
>     draft-hfa-bier-pim-signaling.
>     To address this issue, I need the Chairs to please poll the authors
> about
>     any non-declared IPR.  Please cc the WG (in case anyone else needs to
>     declare something) and include a link to the existing disclosures.
> Once
>     each author has individually replied, I need the Shepherd to update the
>     writeup.
>     [1]

ack, on the todo list. I will reissue IPR request for the draft.

The technical stuff I leave out to the authors


-- tony