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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

> On 2014-02-05 05:58, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> > Loa,
> >
> >>>> Yakov,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> Yakov and Ice,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I left the two draft hanging in a no mans land for
> >> such a long time, other than traveling, being busy with other working
> >> group issues, and having to do a couple of restarts there are no excuse.
> >>
> >> Yakov,
> >>
> >> It is my understanding that the overlap is summed up in the following
> >> text from draft-rekhter:
> >>
> >>     "This document also identifies the deployment scenarios where BGP
> >>      Source Active auto-discovery routes will not be used."
> >>
> >> More specifically, the overlap is the case where the service provider
> >> has provisioned the network in such a way that the RP for a particular
> >> group G is always between the receivers and the sources.  If the
> >> network is provisioned that way, the ingress PE for (S,G) is always
> >> the same as the ingress PE for the RP, so the SA A-D routes are never
> >> needed.
> >>
> >> Draft-rekhter should be scoped to the case where the network is not
> >> known to be provisioned in this way.
> >
> > Could you please propose the text that you'd like meto insert in
> > draft-rekhter ?
> >
> > Yakov.
> >
> 
> Yakov,
> 
> I will try to do so, as I understand it you agree to go ahead with
> the wg adoption poll for draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
> encoding, while we sort out the text that needs to go into
> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

I agreed to the plan you proposed in your e-mail on Dec 4, 2013.
According to this plan

   1.  Issue a single poll to adopt both documents together as
       working group documents

However, what you doing now is *not* what you proposed in the plan,
as now you issued a two week poll on adopting just
draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding as an MPLS working
group document.

Yakov.