Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-bess-ir-04

Paul Kyzivat <> Mon, 15 August 2016 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CE712D500 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wq2Qhh9a5ws8 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0369712B034 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id ZNJibyswl8PeaZNL5bo3Ka; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:14:23 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by with SMTP id ZNL4bNzuTeBysZNL4bNczf; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:14:23 +0000
To: Eric C Rosen <>,
References: <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:14:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNyEPRst2TR3hLFPopFJd8/PLZzmgr2NCcZVaWbowEaQpvd6G/bmWOdJ8WbboYJwsy8JVpBv9rMIW6rZDSoVHtec8WoTO0yCeGjgG/OaMMDtLalKhcv9 VhHD4jfnALkri8uS1+cTqtWuJzrKnRuVu/Bek4ET4kFC6ISVywPwhg6xJHmoTR+meOFOtEOECPqWbEI3oyB1UTk3pvgPdDK6ehxaCWZoHzycGiS8FM/b5rOl QiXqP4qlxCYoFMRguSBYh6oLdj8GJfyqfeYZNZC2X34=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-bess-ir-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:14:26 -0000

On 8/15/16 2:50 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> Thanks for your review.
> On 8/9/2016 4:41 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> it will be unlikely that a new implementer, schooled in the subject
>> matter, will be able to create a correct implementation.
> The material in this draft describes running code.   There are at least
> two independent, interoperable implementations.  The draft was written
> after the implementations were done, and is a faithful description of
> what was implemented.
> While doing the implementation, it was discovered that the Ingress
> Replication feature of RFCs 6513/6514 was under-specified in some
> respects and unclearly specified in others.  The purpose of this draft
> is to document the procedures that had to be figured out during this
> implementation effort.
> I can assure you that this draft makes it a lot easier to implement this
> feature!

Ah. Well, since it was written after the fact, by people who had 
implemented without it, that doesn't constitute an existence proof that 
a new independent implementation will be interoperable with the others. 
(Before tweaking based on interop testing.)

But I do agree that the situation should be better *with* this document 
than without it.

> Of course, Ingress Replication is just part of a larger and more complex
> system.  The draft shows how IR fits into the larger system, but the
> overall system remains complex.

Yeah. I am really glad that *you* are implementing it, and not *me*. :-)

I now have a greater appreciation for why internet-wide multicast is 
generally thought not to work!