Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Thu, 12 December 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68CA1ADF7E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3QNzzrz4dsJD for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8890A1AD8F4 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail210-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.243) by TX2EHSOBE015.bigfish.com (10.9.40.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:39 +0000
Received: from mail210-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail210-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB858C0312; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.16; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -4
X-BigFish: VPS-4(zzdb82h62a3I98dI936eI1432Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h8275bh1de097hz31h2a8h839h944hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh224fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h2216h22d0h2336h1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail210-tx2: transitioning domain of juniper.net does not designate 66.129.239.16 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.239.16; envelope-from=yakov@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
Received: from mail210-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail210-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 138686709879899_31953; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.241]) by mail210-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057318A0064; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.16) by TX2EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (10.9.99.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:37 +0000
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:36 -0800
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id rBCGpYL46117; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201312121651.rBCGpYL46117@magenta.juniper.net>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <52A9958B.7040508@pi.nu>
References: <529F425C.1050808@pi.nu> <201312061405.rB6E5bL25339@magenta.juniper.net> <52A9958B.7040508@pi.nu>
X-MH-In-Reply-To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> message dated "Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:52:59 +0800."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8301.1386867093.1@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:33 -0800
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org" <draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:51:48 -0000

Loa,

> Yacov,
> 
> I can't see that this flies! In fact it is counter to the wg chair
> proposal. We intended to keep the overlap as small as possible,
> specify a function in the document that needs the function. We did
> not intend to increase the overlap, but keep it as small as possible.
> 
> You have this already neatly specified in draft-rekhter- let it stay
> there.

I am fine with keeping the encoding and the procedures for the two
new mLDP TLVs: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV, and Transit IPv6 Shared
Tree TLV in draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

However, I have a question on the following:
 
  2.  Assuming that the drafts are adopted, complete
  draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding as the
  normative protocol specification of the piece within the
  overlap.

What do you define as "the overlap" ?

Yakov.


> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-12-06 22:05, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> > Loa,
> >
> >> Working Group,
> >>
> >> It has been pointed out that there is overlap between
> >> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding and
> >> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.  Within the overlap
> >> there is a critical piece of the protocol specification.
> >> Having this specified in two places is likely to result
> >> in non-interoperable implementations.
> >>
> >> The working group chairs have discussed the overlap and
> >> propose the following as a means of moving forward.
> >>
> >> 1.  Issue a single poll to adopt both documents together as
> >> working group documents
> >>
> >> 2.  Assuming that the drafts are adopted, complete
> >> draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding as the
> >> normative protocol specification of the piece within the
> >> overlap.
> >>
> >> 3.  Where mechanisms in draft-wijnanads are needed in
> >> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp have the latter document
> >> reference the necessary sections of the former document.
> >
> > This would be fine with me, *provided* that
> > draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding will add the encoding
> > of two new mLDP TLVs: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV, and Transit
> > IPv6 Shared Tree TLV, as these two TLVs are required by the mechanisms
> > defined in draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.
> >
> > Yakov.
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>