Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 04:47 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 055A8126CB6; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 jn-GS8elk3Bf; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x236.google.com (mail-ot0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BFF1124D37; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 95so8863851ote.5; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J4s49GLMx2RpVvRnhPD6xIza8roe1o1JyYVoJmkqXkA=; b=j0GpezEUFg2EwZzlBCYnECOrvr2n/EY3XZJGh4+VGBCOA9D+qj1GPqeRwiKIj+D4z+ kd4pKLQFDPYc5pm84tI+abHjfaEblmkeRIJ4IB/bj5WZMDVKIzOuL3uy6tHKHDASWIW2 DjG23a7vXcSmdv6iiWlHW0fyUqkqs0o0nR5C6eu7mkiyJfOLzLwpaX5Coa8fnCoWABNW kd961yVqhgukdse/A16xd8WDSlxUkM4Cf4KShVaBYiRIBa7oF1g1V6y+PwiAW0L9YWEE ITCgyixYtxDKuLeLAorU7afab+QOsFTazKDWLAMCh17wmY1zoXoAeIUk9OFI4lw7CniY V6Bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J4s49GLMx2RpVvRnhPD6xIza8roe1o1JyYVoJmkqXkA=; b=tOULlySD1lrNNim+aYhIvFv/hGYOQ21NyvY6eOOfHUJCpNl3Ijn+XuCSt9M9msDaJA eTv+m5adeXxKgVY53H9eqpFa5GM1oWe2wHnfkCy9izzpWpg7lBedmrLUJOl7MIDh04bS F1TNUAAEteGWvCpe8N0bKVnx0Cvx5SPpsuMUpNOZ7kOwH2CLCK8JyupqvUh5Rh3vIEBd ByCXXr1GdfGaKCmyNCvRcpI5vzrTd7anGxx6cpGVPrHmnz2YkdbIAqvwetlBfqDQp1bL z3of5GSiQDixpez6ea2XiNu3Jo5kml/R6O2Npj3dw0k3nuTmZWfR4J582JOBsd6TDGSb u4+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDzlscQHXOmndfGCznI1ZRZ+khHKu3W3RSVgWgio407PoQQv4vL 3gXw/Bv9852xSWP4HpV4QA4a9nkHeD/HdHZfKC8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22760jNc23y3Sd6eZ4mH2vHedOxFzTqe0oNHORWd/dJkGE61bwBxld/DsGJZd68E9cd4ggOR3ckRtJIRB6PS5P8=
X-Received: by 10.157.27.17 with SMTP id l17mr13211355otl.294.1519102038413; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.68.57 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:47:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <21BC2335-5E56-4340-BB1A-EBAA673E08D6@cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com> <21151215-CF4E-42BD-8042-BAFDF75F54FB@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rf+ZKG=gpJPfBZx0O1Y4GP+GztL-p9yPhR9jn7uu370hA@mail.gmail.com> <03AF1119-86B0-4FB7-8D65-B378DB10CF48@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rftg0_VVhFPGB3jRfQhUVXj0druXzt4HkgcMNnqjgHpJQ@mail.gmail.com> <09D04B24-1353-42C0-9BEA-6FB0D9AEB06F@nokia.com> <CA+wi2hNYM+SW_7JAD-tE9xSJp-FfoKweK8H+H0N0jmEAHpBW+g@mail.gmail.com> <2b2d06405aa7432a91f00a5734607878@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CAG4d1regdnuzGiScuiSRUp1xd=fpx4i+PUWspD-oHGmJbCidJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reAj9hoSACq8mRB4H1E2wiaLxvqZ6cirxuMNMAR9=OkmA@mail.gmail.com> <21BC2335-5E56-4340-BB1A-EBAA673E08D6@cisco.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:47:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdnADLOxEfj_auK0ZN9y7EAOxgrjAJi9=vZx1=_o1xhGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="94eb2c0944ee60cd2705659d81d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/z6_iRPHDClgBYe2bXDDe67S65WE>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:47:24 -0000
Ice, On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:32 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> wrote: > Alia, > > I am quite disappointed in the level of discourse; the BIER-WG has > traditionally worked very > collegially with substantive technical points. > > > I don’t think its necessary to try and discredit people like this for > speaking up. > I am asking for technical reasoning; what breaks, what is facilitated, and so on. I am also evaluating whether the WG is mature enough to handle the proposed recharter - as BIER continues to make its way into the industry - or whether stricter controls are needed. Please do consider the private side conversations you have had as well. > If you ask for input from the WG, you should be honest enough to list all > the options. > If I didn't want the WG input, I would have simply said that it is done. That I have not done so is because I believe in the IETF Standards Process and it is my current responsibility to uphold that. I put options that I see as reasonable on the table - to provide flexibility. I hear you and Les speaking up but not explaining why. I have put up technical objections and concerns that should clearly articulate why I see a joint registry as a technically bad and limiting idea. I have to look at the broad picture. What Les and I say is because we think that is architecturally the right > think to do. If you don’t understand the reasoning or disagree, that is > fine. > You did not give reasoning. You did not explain how you see the complexity it introduces between WGs being handled. > Some problems take time to converge on, clearly in this case there was not > enough time, but the drafts are pushed through anyway, your call. We got > informed through a draft that there was no consensus on how to use the BAR > type 4 weeks ago. > Sometimes deadlines are needed to force conversations to happen and into the open. You knew this when my AD review recommended an IANA registry and I got pushback. > Les’s response to Andrew’s comments are spot on. Over the weekend we tried > to converge over a 16 bit BAR, and how it would look like. We where not > able to converge on the semantics, especially related to option B and > the “BAR sub-type”. Its opening an other can of worms and will cause new > discussion over the BIER architecture in the future. I know, not your > problem. > I see specific technical problems and complexity introduced by a common registry. I see other suggestions trying to merge. I am unclear on why you believe I do not care about setting up BIER for success in the future. That is precisely what I am spending too much time working on. Cough up technical reasons that persuade the WG. Explain to me exactly where I am incorrect. I have not seen technical reasons to justify an extremely late change to the WG drafts nor consensus to do so. I KEEP giving you chances and Weds night is the final deadline. Cheers, Alia > Thx, > > Ice. > > > Regards, > Alia > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: > Les, > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: > I am very sympathetic to doing “as little as possible” given we are > talking about documents which are going through final reviews. > > At the same time, I think defining the authoritative source for algorithm > values is important. > > > > I therefore agree w Ice – let’s keep the current 8 bit algorithm value – > but make it clear that the identifiers come from the IGP Registry. > > > I do not hear from you or Ice a clear technical reason nor willingness to > address the concerns that I raised about the impact > on the use of BIER. > > I see no technical reasons being used to recommend combining the BIER BAR > registry and the IGP Algorithms registry. > > > Andrew – I do not think there is agreement on what the function of a “BAR > sub-type” is. Therefore I am not comfortable in adding it to the drafts. > > Certainly this may prove to be useful, but let’s add it when we know how > it will be used and how to assign values to it. That requires more > discussion than can reasonably be had in the current context. > > > > Tony / Alia – the argument that 256 algorithm values is not enough for all > use cases (BIER specific and IGP specific and Babel specific…) – or even > that 128 is not enough (if we allow the Flex-Algo proposal to reserve half > of the space) – simply does not ring true to me. > > If I waited for you to buy me a beer when we reached 10 algorithms I > likely will go thirsty for a very long time. > > > It is fascinating to see that you believe me too busy to keep up on the > side discussions happening - or perhaps merely too distracted to > recall the emails discussing acquiring half of the IGP Algorithm space for > flex-algo. I do talk to my WG Chairs. > > Please engage substantively with technical arguments. If you have them, > you are more than capable of representing them > accurately. > > > So Option E seems best to me. > > > That was not part of my listed options. > > Regards, > Alia > > > > > Les > > > > From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 6:20 PM > To: Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <andrew.dolganow@nokia.com> > Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>; IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>; > isis-wg@ietf.org list <isis-wg@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Bier] [Isis-wg] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions > and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions > > > > My reaction to AD's options: > > 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. > > > > > +1 to this option, i.e. current status with IANA BIER BAR registry. > > I think we have a clear and current case which is anchored already in the > architecture RFC as section 6.9 > > The draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-bier-algorithm-00 goes > into more detail in this respect and I hope the draft being adopted and at > least a single BAR value being assigned to deal with brownfield deployments > today where not all routers support BIER. This clearly necessitates a BIER > BAR registry. > > > 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. > > > +2 for Option B). Albeit we can meet future use cases with BAR subtype > being a sub-TLV a bar type/bar subtype 16 bits field (subtype with or > without registry and of course we can name those things differently) all > sub-TLVs in IGPs are traditionally “optional”, i.e. adding sub-TLVs later > _may_ cause backwards compatibility problems. Defining the subtype today > will allow us to specify that only type/subtype 0/0 is well defined & any > unknown type/subtype combination must be avoided. The subtype will allow > for BAR 0 or future BAR types to understand that subtype is in a sense a > “mandatory sub-TLV” and the routers sending out such subtype must be > avoided, even if the type itself is known. Several possibilities come to > mind immediately such as using Unicast IGP Algorithm Registry as subtype > for certain BAR values or accommodate interesting, future work like Flex > Algo into BIER right after IGP RFCs are available which IMO would present a > very beneficial future direction for BIER technology cleanly governed by a > BIER BAR registry. > > PS: I think we should control the urges of workgroup participants to > explore the number of letters in the roman alphabet that we can use to > introduce their preferred solutions if we want to get to some kind of > consensus on this thread. > > PPS: Option E has been discussed in the last 16-bit thread to the point of > logical conclusion of a "all routing protocols under the sun algorithm > registry" and found to be a rathole I thought ... > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) < > andrew.dolganow@nokia.com> wrote: > > All, > > > > As we discussed here (as a WG) and in this topic: > > • We need to have ability to define way for independent BIER computation > algorithms (for BIER specific computations or other use cases, some of > which Alia highlighted in her email below) > • We want to have extensibility to use other non-BIER specific algorithms > (as others brought up) > > > The original draft can be argued not to provide both of those > capabilities, and thus Option A below (marked as Current status) really > just defers the issue. I find Option E that Ice added also > counterproductive as it eliminates the top use case above. Thus we really > left with options B, C, D as a compromise. From those, Option B seems to me > the best: > > • It meets the requirements above > • It allows a clean implementation (as opposed to Option C which is a bit > more kludgy). Thanks to a sub-TLV defining what BAR field carries – a > BIER-specific algorithm defined in BIER specific registry (a registry that > should be BIER specific, regardless of IGP used), or something else to meet > needs expressed by others, we meet the requirements from those who > wanted to change the Current status > > > Option C/D are acceptable alternatives; however, Option B seems > technically cleanest, most flexible, and meeting all requirements. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Isis-wg <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas < > akatlas@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM > To: "(Ice) IJsbrand Wijnands" <ice@cisco.com> > Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions > and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions > > > > Ice, > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> wrote: > > Alia, > > > > I appreciate that you have finally decided to discuss this on the BIER > mailing list. > > > I know that there are individual drafts draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo-00 > and draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo-02. > I see a bit of discussion on the is-is mailing list and at IETF 100, but, > of course, no WG adoption. > > I see BIER as a fundamental technology that can be used in different > situations. For instance, there is not merely > discussion of how Babel and BIER could interact - but actual code (thanks > Sandy!); of course, that is not a WG-adopted > draft yet either, so this is merely a thought experiment example. How do > the different algorithms > work for an IGP that isn't link-state? What about the ideas around using > BIER with caches? Are there issues there? > What about algorithms that make sense for BIER or multicast - but not for > unicast? > > IANA registries are not price prohibitive. Why would we tie BIER to the > link-state IGP registry? > > > > We are talking about what needs to be advertised in OSPF and ISIS in order > to select the BIER underlay. We are not discussing Babel or any other > candidate underlay technologies for BIER. Moreover, we are not limiting any > new innovation with BIER regarding the underlay. This discussion is > strictly related to the drafts in the title. > > > > I do not hear you making a technical argument. > > > > This is an architectural argument! > > > > 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? > > > > The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer. The BAR is for the > BIER layer. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > > > Hope this clarifies, > > > > Thx, > > > > Ice. > > > > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > There is one more option that I think is not fully covered from the choice > of options related to getting a registry. > > The topic of the discussion is what information we need to pass in the IGP > in order for BIER to select the correct underlay. What identifies the > underlay is really what ever information is needed to select the > Table (MT-ID) and Algorithm. An example of Algorithm work that is going on > is Flex-Algo. My preferred option is to align with what ever the IGPs are > using to identify the Algorithm. > > Option E: Change BAR into “IGP Algorithm” registry as documented in > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp- > algorithm-types > > Thx, > > Ice. > > > On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:51, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> 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 > > > > <PastedGraphic-6.png> > > > > <image001.png> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > >
- [Isis-wg] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isi… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… arkadiy.gulko
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Xiejingrong
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda