Subject: [Bier] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-bier-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:53:00 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-bier-01-05: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bier/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
  5) Management models: The WG may work on YANG models to manage BIER.

"May work", really?  A new protocol without automation doesn't exist.
And there is already draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-03
What do I miss? Or maybe it's just a wording issue?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
OLD:
The BIER-WG is now chartered to produce Standards Track RFCs, including
RFCs 8279 and 8296.

NEW:
The BIER-WG is now chartered to produce Standards Track RFCs, including the update of
RFCs 8279 and 8296.

-
  3) Use Case: The WG will produce one use-case document that clearly
     articulates the potential benefits of BIER for different use-cases.

You already have your architecture and protocol. So I guess there are use-cases.
Should this be called an applicability document?

-
"The BIER-WG will serve as a forum to discuss how BIER can be applied."
Is there a specific goal behind this sentence? Or just normal WG discussions?

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:00:54 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bier/

Just a wording issue - sorry - and fixed!  The work is underway
(draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-03)

> the update of

So - I'm bouncing between Alvaro questioning if it even needs to be
mentioned and you
wanting it to be explicit.  This is just a Status Update - no plan for a
bis - and that is scheduled
for March 8  (as I advised would happen

> Should this be called an applicability document?

No - this is draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-06.  It is in WGLC and just didn't
quite make it out yet.

> Is there a specific goal behind this sentence? Or just normal WG

Some folks have been coming to talk about how to use it for HTTP caching,
for instance,
and I don't want to discourage this.  There are no WG drafts for this.
It's a bit similar to
how PIM provides advice on IP multicast work.

Regards,
Alia

>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:30:33 -0500

Alia,
> wanting it to be explicit.
For me, it's just a language issue: The previous wording was ambiguous 
without the "update" word
> This is just a Status Update - no plan for a bis - and that is scheduled
> No - this is draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-06.  It is in WGLC and just 
> didn't quite make it out yet.
Ok. I thought it was a new work item.
> Some folks have been coming to talk about how to use it for HTTP 
> caching, for instance,
> and I don't want to discourage this.  There are no WG drafts for 
> this.  It's a bit similar to
ok.
Discussing here at nanog with Ignas and others, we were considering 
whether to have some more *-users IETF mailing lists
Ex: you start with YANG for automation, and you have some practical 
questions: where do you go? NETMOD, maybe not. YANG-doctors, not really? 
So maybe a new [email-masked]?
I was wondering if you had something similar in mind?

Regards, Benoit
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
>
>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:44:31 -0500

> without the "update" word

K - I think it's cleaner to have it here too.

> questions: where do you go? NETMOD, maybe not. YANG-doctors, not really? So
> maybe a new [email-masked]?

Ah - nope, but I think that's a great idea!
Let's chat next week (when I'm not as exhausted) and think about what the
right structure would be.