Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03

Gunter,

We don't necessarily need to merge drafts, I'm against renaming, there's quite some work being done around MSD.
My point is about encoding - having it as MSD type. It is absolutely up to you/co-authors though.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:09, guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com wrote:
> 
> Indeed, i feel no big issue in merging the documents... the question i do ask myself is that for IGP (for both ospf and isis) there is an individual draft to signal MSD and another for RLD... i feel that for consistency maybe 2 documents for BGP seem also logical. However i'm not that strongly against merging the documents either.
> 
> If we do decide for a merger of documents then lets maybe not call it either MSD or RLD as that will be confusing to people that read the IGP documents... Maybe something as SDS (Segment Depth Signaling) makes more sense? Small change to reduce confusion and  provides potential future extensibility if needed).
> 
> G/
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 10:50
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant), Susan Hares, 'idr wg'
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org
> 
> 
> Ketan,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m of the same opinion, wrt IGP’s – RLD has been there for quite some time already: draft-ietf-(ospf|isis)-mpls-elc
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 20:32
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
> Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org" <draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)
> 
>  
> 
> This document is useful, however I would like to suggest if the authors could consider merging this with draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd where the RLD becomes another MSD sub-type. I believe draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd provides a much better extensible mechanism for signalling of other such label limits at link and node level. Not to mention, this also is more efficient encoding.
> 
>  
> 
> While I am not sure if similar would be possible at this stage in the under-lying IGPs, but it is perhaps not too late to consider for BGP-LS protocol?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
>  
> 
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: 15 June 2017 05:50
> To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org
> Subject: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)
> 
>  
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 (6/14/2017 to 6/28/2017).    The chairs would appreciate if the operators would indicate whether they would deploy this draft.   
> 
>  
> 
> The authors should within the first 5 days do the following: 
> 
> 1)       Send a statement to the WG indicating whether you know of any IPR 
> 
> 2)       Indicate whether you know of existing implementations 
> 
> 3)       Please respond to the IDR list questions on a daily basis 
> 
>  
> 
> Sue Hares and John Scudder 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr 
> 
> 
> 