Subject: Re: [Bier] BOF deadline approaching

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 06:15:12 -0800

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> I am still waiting to see an updated problem-statement and use-cases.
>>
>
> Posted
>
>
>> I would strongly encourage making a BoF request - working group forming;
>>
>
> I made a request for a slot last week. My view in the tools has BIER as an
> option - possibly a placeholder for a pending WG formation, I'm not sure.
> Can you confirm that this request is sufficient to allocate a slot for
> BIER, BoF or WG, or if I need to also make a request for a BIER BoF?
>

Any clarity on the schedule request?

>
>> it isn't clear to me that there will be sufficient progress before Dallas
>> to be
>> certain of agreeing on a charter.
>>
>
In our interim meeting we targeted the end of Jan for both the Problem
Statement and the Use Cases draft - both of which were rev'd and published
on target. What other progress do we need to pursue?

I'm working on a draft charter now and hope to have something to review
this week.

Thanks for your help,
Greg

>
>>
> Putting in a BoF request, assuming it is approved of course, makes sure
>> that there is meeting time scheduled.
>>
>> The deadlne is Feb 6.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BIER mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>>
>>
>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:53:25 -0500

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I made a request for a slot last week. My view in the tools has BIER as
>> an option - possibly a placeholder for a pending WG formation, I'm not
>> sure. Can you confirm that this request is sufficient to allocate a slot
>> for BIER, BoF or WG, or if I need to also make a request for a BIER BoF?
>>
>

I do see the request in the sessions - but am not sure that'll work since
bier isn't a WG.
I did put a placeholder on the BOF page.

> on target. What other progress do we need to pursue?

I am certainly happy to see the work progressing on schedule.  That's a
good sign.  I intend to review these
drafts this week.  I really want to have a clear discussion of the
deployment costs vs benefits of the technology;
does BIER enable new capabilities due to scale changes?  Again - I haven't
read the updated problem statement yet
so I hope this is there.

> I'm working on a draft charter now and hope to have something to review

I'm certainly happy to see a draft charter.  Do be aware that it will
likely be tightened up and focused on defining
the solution.

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: IJsbrand Wijnands <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:01:21 +0100

Hi Alia,

> I am certainly happy to see the work progressing on schedule.  That's a good sign.  I intend to review these
> drafts this week.  I really want to have a clear discussion of the deployment costs vs benefits of the technology;
> does BIER enable new capabilities due to scale changes?  Again - I haven't read the updated problem statement yet
> so I hope this is there. 

Please also checkout the updated use-case draft, (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumar-bier-use-cases-01.txt>), that should help you answer the above question.

Thx,

Ice.

>  
> I'm working on a draft charter now and hope to have something to review this week.
> 
> I'm certainly happy to see a draft charter.  Do be aware that it will likely be tightened up and focused on defining
> the solution.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alia
>  
> Thanks for your help,
> Greg
>  
>  
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:09:19 -0800

Inline:

> I do see the request in the sessions - but am not sure that'll work since

Okay, so no definitive answer means I need to also request a BoF session,
right? The deadline is approaching.

> I did put a placeholder on the BOF page.

For my submission I'm guessing?

> read the updated problem statement yet

What precisely are you expecting to be quantified under 'cost'? If we're
talking development/purchase cost of equipment I'm confused a bit as to
where the IETF has taken on this roll in the past. Can you clarify?

> likely be tightened up and focused on defining

Will do, thanks!,
Greg

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 12:22:51 -0500

Hi Greg,

> For my submission I'm guessing?

Yes - it should be ok, but if you wanted to update the description and
guess of people, that'd be great.

>> does BIER enable new capabilities due to scale changes?  Again - I
>> haven't read the updated problem statement yet
>> so I hope this is there.
>>
>

Of course, it's not the purchase cost or development cost of equipment!
We're not the ones evaluating whether to buy for a particular network or
develop for it.  It's a question of whether the impact of a new data-plane
is worth the problems being solved.  The short form of the question is
whether there's a non-trivial market for this that have problems motivating
such a solution or are we talking about complicating a very narrow
and sensitive part of the architecture for something that won't gain
traction.

I am sensitive to the arguments about innovation needing time to evolve and
for the benefits to be clear, which is why I'm willing to
work on an Experimental charter.  One item in the charter should be
describing the experiment and how to evaluate the results.

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Greg Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:33:54 -0800

Inline:

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>>> I made a request for a slot last week. My view in the tools has BIER
>>>>> as an option - possibly a placeholder for a pending WG formation, I'm not
>>> I do see the request in the sessions - but am not sure that'll work
>>> since bier isn't a WG.
>>>
>>

You didn't answer the first question, and this answer is still a bit soft.
I've already requested a slot as per the online tool BUT this was as a WG I
believe - no confirmation either way. I will go ahead and ALSO request a
BoF slot and let the IESG sort it out. I will then update the BoF
placeholder you started with updated info. If this is NOT the recommended
path forward please let me know soon or it will be done.

>
>>
>>> it isn't clear to me that there will be sufficient progress before
>>>>>> Dallas to be
> is worth the problems being solved.
>

Ok, then how do we quantify 'impact'? Adding a new data-plane should have
no impact on existing data-planes, outside of the cost of equipment. What
am I missing?

>   The short form of the question is
> whether there's a non-trivial market for this that have problems
> motivating such a solution or are we talking about complicating a very
> narrow

Understood. The size of the turnout at the last BoF seems a pretty solid
indication that the current multicast solutions have issues, to say the
least. This seems to indicate a community need. But ultimately the 'impact'
would need to have a defined solution. Defining a solution is the role of a
WG, correct?

> I am sensitive to the arguments about innovation needing time to evolve
> and for the benefits to be clear, which is why I'm willing to
> work on an Experimental charter.
>

As we spoke before, the final definition of Experimental vs Standards track
would take place at the time of final publishing of the work, based on
community support. Has this changed?

> One item in the charter should be describing the experiment and how to
> evaluate the results.
>

Great. Can you point me to a solid definition of 'impact' so I can better
target an experiment designed to quantify this?

Thanks!,
Greg