Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Mon, 19 June 2017 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E26A126B6D; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pov1MRbCQeT3; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EACB1200C5; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11345; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497835062; x=1499044662; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=kNBKVCVfU1aWFcblMii14nk6u9HSyNH2+QUkUif6DP4=; b=G3JSjdsI1vJuEra8FvOuuqyIfpkzFzhaL+TeQXtUleQgX5WoDnSdtn8g R8FJjR+xjhYuHB5layYiqXnZKLJFHHSiWQDVq9fs6b8ILplvJVvVtuMvY pmYcednQNpoLOGlp83pJWfIune4S5QMn+D1a3CN7IbEQwV7NVIR2UQh+A I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,358,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="259493253"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Jun 2017 01:17:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5J1HfDt026039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:17:41 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:17:40 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:17:40 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHS5VYLGSOlKtAx/Euz6n9XKUfvmKIq+fOAgABvBwA=
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:17:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D56C9DE0B55B2aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:17:45 -0000

I see now that all the documents are standards track so scratch the first comment. I’m not sure where I got the “experimental”…

From: BIER <<>> on behalf of Acee Lindem <<>>
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM
To: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

Hi Greg, Authors,

I support publication. Also, I have two comments.

   1. It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track while the architecture and encapsulations are experimental.
   2. The OSPF encoding will not support the second example in In this example, the BSL 256 and 512 are intermixed. While with the encoding, they would need to be two separate ranges of labels.

I also have some editorial comments but I’ll just pass them to the authors.


From: BIER <<>> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <<>>
Reply-To: "<>" <<>>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM
To: "<>" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05


At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and operator support.

This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:

WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the work.

(BIER Chairs)