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

Alia Atlas <> Tue, 20 February 2018 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B62126BF3; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Vb7dqfdwEqPT; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5B912008A; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f186so1460770oig.4; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1f77cLthezGFmZf+veYIcQ0wjC4j8XqCpPaGWfhmyGE=; b=dZbgpg96G9akTWCT7tmXqKExvqdW6G6LBdHcFO8Wlis8DWba5mfmOTIsR47KZIbYUt 8r1YBKg73nMBjmePeXdJC0mJWQmrwaKolr1NeVhLr80aeFAttU9oRJ3evNtPUr3/ljin P70jug82O1I5TbgRjt9vIIQMveVae5fIzEekiLloImpVHf8ABNpm2kYqitQjSu5S8Cmi aK89K2XyAPFbhV8J5EDERIr2X/y5/QmC9FDGLxQ2XIF/Z8Pwc1LRuzCiLnIL3p9YvhuG BH3aPYwFt7LwaSpE+PXG9p1rcqYU0pOSujkDIwtI1p3aJSlVIthg1FMJ/GP2OzBuZjF3 Vd5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1f77cLthezGFmZf+veYIcQ0wjC4j8XqCpPaGWfhmyGE=; b=eAJk0tVrmkREoNuC8Zhy73HNw/CAf1Nz2egOvzDM1BY8GT9Jsj6QXMmXXcEqC0BPjW 9wucrW0xFFowHnPekCg8kaZqsDs7Lt/ycgFdGbkFiSAiZczChqjdMhP3SB4h+JdOUwA3 8h86M5HyJ0bHCO+Y2/csQHcmh2YmPB3jILg1KIfellvlvMoOqUg4UGuBIkxeHRg4rHuL kjQv86IjiT7wzcTGBJDzrPl/x18VzFN+ijuP3AiRKNmmJXOAe9NBk3LfE7tfhlGad+cQ onsVo0/zSLTgm2EnCDIxbNDdNhMfBFrGzm61NEp5MHuarA1St2AuxTtrHHJ3EW/DzbM4 19UA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCb0728l7/YL3niiAqoGhp66/VwfzK3aohEGfv5eSEA+i/nWywj yk5x2jreGWpKdZ5quuAuTs8U3TKkwOfrtTPdeG8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2251QhTsOjyWVHFz4pKu3mOIDjP/Csu+qPCeBZsYi6fAnXT/JJvxhHvioVBquJkciSLS8TqLKZkjoz1FrPyDJec=
X-Received: by with SMTP id r65mr10779256oif.132.1519091891647; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:58:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:58:11 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <>
Cc: BIER WG <>, " list" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cd1f89539cd05659b24c1"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 01:58:14 -0000


At this point in the process, it would be necessary to make an overwhelming
technical argument - that would sway almost the whole
WG to your perspective.

I see you saying that you have a personal preference for having the IGP
Algorithm registry also be used for the BAR registry.   While
I do, of course, respect where you have technical expertise, my response -
particularly from a process perspective - is "that's nice".


On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:15 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <> wrote:

> Alia,
> > An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the
> title.
> >
> > If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER
> OSPF  and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be
> reasonable.  Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an OSPF BAR
> registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry.  Perhaps
> > that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included in
> the next update?
> There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registry. The
> point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify the
> algorithm.
> > The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer.  The BAR is for the
> BIER layer.
> The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can carry
> BIER specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the selection.
> Thx,
> Ice.