Subject: [Bier] Meeting Notes 110

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:13:28 +0100

BIER Session Minutes Mar, 9, 2021

Draft Tethering Egress Protection Update
========================================

Huaimo: Should we have a dedicated document to egress protection only?
Chairs: Yes, possibly good idea, let's go to the list and find consensus on
that.

BIER Implementation
===================

Discussion on research networks & different implemenations

MLD
===

WG LC: 8 in favor, goes to the list

MLDP
====

Adopted already, call for any additional comments

WG LC: 5 in favor, goes to the list

OAM
===

Calls for shepherds

Hooman: Shepherds path-mtu-discovery

TE Drafts (egress & FRR)
========================

no further discussion

BIER FRR
========

Adoption: 8 for, 1 against
Greg: too much state
Tony P: we already have this state with IGP anyway
Hooman: is that just IGP protection nexthop?
Huaimo: we have FRR table for the nexthop
Thorless: sender/receivers do not change state so it's BIER
Hooman: but we'll have interop confusion about differnt FRR
Tony P: draft probably has to be very explicit about what happens when IGP
is signalling and in which cases you use this solution and what happens in
case of overlaps

INGRESS PROTECTION
==================

Huaimo: why detect failures nodes in the middle?
Greg/Sandy: it's the same as ingress protection. only mechanism we have is
p2mp BFD
Call for Adoption: 9 to 0, take to the list

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:45:36 -0800

Hi Tony,
thank you for taking notes and sharing them with the group.
Asking for a volunteer to shepherd draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery was
one of the points I've wanted to convey in the presentation. Other points:

   - Would the WG decide to publish the BIER OAM requirements document or
   let it expire and use it as an informative reference in BIER OAM solution
   documents?
   - Authors of draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam worked on addressing comments
   received in the AD Review. Much appreciate the feedback from AD.
   - Ready to work with Shepherds of all BIER OAM drafts to progress
   documents.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:14 AM Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Chairs: Yes, possibly good idea, let's go to the list and find consensus
> on that.
>
> BIER Implementation
> ===================
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:13:26 +0100

> one of the points I've wanted to convey in the presentation. Other points:

ack, volunteers, line up, no pushing please ;-)

>    let it expire and use it as an informative reference in BIER OAM solution
since on the last call there was zero response we tend to let it rest as
"dead wg document". I assume you ok with that. We should not burn IESG
cycles with stuff that didn't get enoug h attention to go RFC AFAIS

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:59:35 -0800

Hi Tony,
thank you for the clarification. If letting the
draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements slip into the abyss doesn't impact the
progress of documents that address particular requirements and reference
draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements, I have no problem with that. If I recall
correctly, Alvaro asked why the solution document,
draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam, is moving ahead of the BIER OAM requirements.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:14 PM Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>    - Would the WG decide to publish the BIER OAM requirements document
>>    or let it expire and use it as an informative reference in BIER OAM
>>    solution documents?
>>
>>