Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

Tony,

> Ice, as you well know we ended up with a one value BAR field without a registry (you being a strong proponent of such solution if I recall correctly) which is the current draft state in IETF LC Greg initiated. 

Indeed, along with other steak holders -T.

> Yes, ideas were extended based on original private drafts which have not been initiated from my side BTW. Some draft of a draft followed from other parties (which I was part of) trying to reconcile the different asks into some kind of a workable state.  Obviously I have many such discussions juggling at any given point in time around technologies I push forward and I try to keep a lot of people invested while assuring that we don't end up with intractable balls of yarn. In this case I did not see in a timely manner any consensus that seemed mature enough to me to shake the IETF LC despite having repeatedly notifying the parties that time is not infinite here and workable consensus for many involved interests is not equivalent to having one's desires being part of imperative substratum of
  the technology. And in this case all was aggravated somewhat by the fact that we were talking introduction of unspecified fields reflecting  working versions of private drafts on top of an already 
 barely specified field we have. 
> 
> In short: since you state you're fine with the draft as it is (I omit the nits/defect I found with Les

I was always fine with the version that Greg LC'd as you rightfully state above.

>  which I assume will cause no further discussions) neither do I see any need to shake the draft further.

Good to hear!

>  Ongoing developments of the technology will be taken into future drafts  especially since we are steering towards a generous standards charter to develop BIER. 

Thx,

Ice.