Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Sat, 10 February 2018 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ice@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BD0127867; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:49:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJFBntk6WhQP; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CB4E127871; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:49:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518252546; x=1519462146; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IcChQdWieHlzC3uQ+qifgWkyZJ+2qFAUuDZzrwmWm2k=; b=Stqe1lcGLlpO9SeAGZWXND6Fq2mgFpU94Xl4/9amOf7A6EQ7mOr/JFc9 zjLtOvNVE9mgPl+feWYbd/cTWlsdc2+kD8AC5RqfE793oZPFlITWUbWZF 4tWLLmv5aKHntAXOPXoaTWTXzcNETL8raEZNohfxSSOZvkpW06dWDBZSG g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CTAQAhsX5a/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYMhggePJY12AQEBBoENJ3yYdAqFOwKDEhQBAgEBAQEBAQJrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?kAQQBOj8FCwtGVwYuig0FCLF2iHaCDQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEfhHyDJ?= =?us-ascii?q?IIwKQyCQzaFIoNIgjQBBJomiggJlgSURJRLgyACBAsCGQGBPDYigVBNIxVnAYI?= =?us-ascii?q?cPoIWHIIHQI0GAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,488,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1932680"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Feb 2018 08:49:02 +0000
Received: from ams-iwijnand-8813.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8813.cisco.com [10.60.202.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1A8n2K9029148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:49:02 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hOTTcM1oUCYFGd5q15WMiDXZx5xucvNT5EyzqYvc=w2RA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:49:07 +0100
Cc: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "EXT-arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com" <arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <384A7889-F56C-4483-8CE2-54083D7249FF@cisco.com>
References: <20170721062741.GA3215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+wi2hOCZkLeuqnqr-waNMtaex+Pjq3rXzH-HVqJhLkWQUgj_Q@mail.gmail.com> <567fdbe4992c4207b54c77b1ec8cd0cd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20170722133419.GA18218@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <37e324dc58454778b70c72255066536f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <20170725195211.GA7411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CABFReBpt088=SC3eBcfFbJ24e_+GkDmvKh05AaQtUmCoaKEG3w@mail.gmail.com> <cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4ed@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoBXn-Fc5B+Y9VdfEWC+sY=bLdmDUz3NqO6XXeDgbeW_g@mail.gmail.com> <E66A4C2B-7450-4040-9D13-53ACA2B03572@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rfu-iUoX4uh+wE2xLjMWidq-JSknb38jsfsP_946fBmWw@mail.gmail.com> <D0A33296-9C0E-4548-9157-9952E611E785@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rfy4hvGz=qTjKmYRG9nzbTURWZEA9Zrx54Ht8hBPwswXg@mail.gmail.com> <8FA8D641-0FD7-491E-B14E-FD52C1059D82@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hOTTcM1oUCYFGd5q15WMiDXZx5xucvNT5EyzqYvc=w2RA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/9xre_K-2sG_ZAAbGh-H2Cr8o0gM>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:49:09 -0000

Tony,

> Ice, as you well know we ended up with a one value BAR field without a registry (you being a strong proponent of such solution if I recall correctly) which is the current draft state in IETF LC Greg initiated. 

Indeed, along with other steak holders -T.

> Yes, ideas were extended based on original private drafts which have not been initiated from my side BTW. Some draft of a draft followed from other parties (which I was part of) trying to reconcile the different asks into some kind of a workable state.  Obviously I have many such discussions juggling at any given point in time around technologies I push forward and I try to keep a lot of people invested while assuring that we don't end up with intractable balls of yarn. In this case I did not see in a timely manner any consensus that seemed mature enough to me to shake the IETF LC despite having repeatedly notifying the parties that time is not infinite here and workable consensus for many involved interests is not equivalent to having one's desires being part of imperative substratum of the technology. And in this case all was aggravated somewhat by the fact that we were talking introduction of unspecified fields reflecting  working versions of private drafts on top of an already barely specified field we have. 
> 
> In short: since you state you're fine with the draft as it is (I omit the nits/defect I found with Les

I was always fine with the version that Greg LC'd as you rightfully state above.

>  which I assume will cause no further discussions) neither do I see any need to shake the draft further.

Good to hear!

>  Ongoing developments of the technology will be taken into future drafts  especially since we are steering towards a generous standards charter to develop BIER. 

Thx,

Ice.