Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

[Rob Shakir <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jingrong,

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 7:44 PM Xiejingrong <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Will SPRING consider multicast/BIER being included ? These are some
> reasons I am thinking about:
>
> (1) multicast/multipoint-transfer is always a requirement for internet
> service, and is always requiring some unicast technology as a precursor.
>
> (2) there is already a similar WG BIER to considering the similar
> stateless solution for multicast for long-term.
>
> (3) there is already some consideration about multipoint SR in
> segment-routing-policy draft for a long time.
>
> (4) there is already some consideration about combining BIER and SR in
> bier-6man-encapsulation draft.
>
> (5) it had been mentioned in ietf101 London to consider cooperating with
> BIER for some purpose.
>

robjs> IMHO, if BIER leverages SR work this should be in liaison with
SPRING, but I do not expect there to be any BIER related work in SPRING
itself. If this needs changes to dataplanes, then the relevnat working
group (mpls, or 6man) should be involved too.

robjs> It is my personal opinion that the SR-TE policy draft needs to be a
constrained set of problems. It had become a collect-your-use-case
document. Part of the ask of breaking the document down is so that we can
produce a clear, succinct set of documents. Until such time as there are
concrete proposals on multicast in SR that SPRING needs to consider (i.e.,
require a new functional specification, ratheror architectural extension)
then I would aim to err on the side of keeping the charter clear, rather
than collecting all possible use cases in it.

robjs> Please disagree with me if there is a benefit to having this in the
charter that I'm missing.

Thanks,
r.