Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Hi Alia, 
I support Peter's position on the draft. While I believe at 8 bit space is more than enough to support  variations of the BIER algorithm for the foreseeable future, I think reaching consensus is more critical than the precise encoding. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 2/20/18, 12:28 PM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:

    Hi Alia,

    1. I see a benefit in having the BIER a way to map to any of the IGP 
    algorithms. Simply because IGPs already provide paths to all nodes in 
    the domain and BIER can simply use these paths instead of computing its own.

    2. Not sure if people plan to deploy the BIER in a model where it does 
    its own topology related computations, independent of IGPs. If they do, 
    I'm not objecting that.

    The encoding of the BAR though must be done in a way that it easily 
    supports both (1) and (2).

    my 2c,
    Peter

    On 19/02/18 22:51 , Alia Atlas wrote:
    > As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and
    > draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been following the discussion
    > on the mailing list with interest.
    >
    > I have not seen clear consensus for any change.
    >
    > Let me be clear on what I see the options are from the discussion.  Then
    > I'll elaborate
    > a bit on how you can express your perspective most usefully.
    >
    > 1) Current Status:  Bier Algorithm (BAR) field is 8 bits.  Currently,
    > only value 0 is specified.  The drafts do not have an IANA registry -
    > with the expectation that one will be created when the first additional
    > use is clear.  It is possible that there will be objections from the
    > IESG to progressing without an IANA registry.  Given the lack of clarity
    > for future use-cases and after discussion, I decided not to force one
    > after my AD review - but I will not push back against having a BIER IANA
    > registry if raised by others.
    >
    > 2) Option B:  Add a BAR sub-type of 8 bits.  This would modify the
    > current TLVs.
    >     Define an IANA registry for the BAR type.  The meaning of the BAR
    > sub-type derives
    >     from the BAR type.   We can debate over the registration policy for
    > the BAR type.
    >
    > 3) Option C: Change the BAR field to be 16 bits and define an IANA
    > registry.  Part of the range can be FCFS with Expert Review, part can be
    > Specification Required, and part can be IETF Consensus.
    >
    > 4) Option D: At some point in the future, if there is an actual
    > understood and documented need, a BAR sub-type could be added a
    > sub-TLV.  The length of the BAR sub-type could be determined when the
    > sub-TLV is defined.
    >
    > Given
    >
    >    a) option D exists
    >    b) there is currently only one defined value for BAR
    >    c) I do not see strong consensus for change to one particular other
    > option
    >
    > I see no current reason for a change and I certainly see absolutely no
    > reason for
    > a delay in progressing the documents.
    >
    > I do want to be clear about what the WG wants to do on this issue.
    > Therefore, here is
    > my following request.
    >
    > Please send your feedback to the mailing list as follows:
    >
    > IF you prefer or can accept the current status, please say so.  No more
    > justification
    > or reasoning is required. I just don't want the bulk of folks who are
    > content to be
    > overlooked by those suggesting change.
    >
    > IF you prefer or can accept the current status, but think there should
    > be an IANA registry
    > as is usual for managing code-points, please say so.  No more
    > justification is needed.
    >
    > IF you prefer Option B, C, and/or D, please say so with your
    > explanation.  More technical depth than "'we might need it" would be
    > helpful; the availability of sub-TLVs already
    > provides future proofing.
    >
    > IF you have a clear technical objection to why the Current Status is not
    > acceptable,
    > please express that - with clear details.
    >
    > IF you feel that additional code-points should be allocated in a BAR
    > IANA Registry or
    > have thoughts on the appropriate policy, please say so with your
    > explanation for what
    > those should be.
    >
    > Unless I see clear and strong consensus for something other than the
    > Current Status,
    > that will remain.
    >
    > IF there is clear and strong consensus for Option B, C, or D, or adding
    > an IANA registry with particular values, then it will be possible to
    > have a change up through this Weds night - with a 1 week WGLC on that
    > particular technical change.
    >
    > My priority is to have the base BIER specifications published as
    > Proposed Standards so that more BIER implementations and deployment can
    > be done.  I would like the WG to wrap up the core work (as expressed in
    > the proposed recharter) so that you all can look
    > at how to use it.
    >
    > Given this topic was raised last Weds and given that there are no
    > technical objections raised to the documents as are, there isn't much
    > time - so please just respond to this email ASAP.  My deadline for a
    > decision is 6pm EST on Weds.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Alia
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > BIER mailing list
    > BIER@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >

    _______________________________________________
    Isis-wg mailing list
    Isis-wg@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg