Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Jeffrey: 

 

The assumptions in the following email: 

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/

 

are based on past assumptions.  The  BESS, IDR, and PIM WG Chairs

have agreed to a joint WG adoptions to gain input from these 3 WGs

into cohesive solutions.   Therefore, let's focus on the technologies in
this adoption.  

 

Please repost your draft: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/

 

I have extended the WG adoption call so that you can repost this draft.

Please repost on 4/5 or 4/6.  Without a repost of your draft, 

I will close the WG adoption call. 

 

My next posts will focus on the technical based on the following 

assertions you made in 

 

You indicated in 

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8k4Pkcg0aqIwPFbSULXepsaHDSw/

 

"When it comes to SR-P2MP state downloading, there are three aspects
involved here:

 

1.	NLRI to encode policy information
2.	NLRI to encode <tree/path/instance, node> identification
3.	Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA) that encodes actual replication
branches

 

The draft-ietf-bess-(even when used for SR-P2MP) is aligned with other

non-SR multicast trees (IP/mLDP) for a unified approach, 

while draft-hb is aligned to unicast BGP SR policy."

 

Sue Hares