Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

I support the adoption.

Regards,
Sridhar

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:01 PM <pim-request@ietf.org> wrote:

> Send pim mailing list submissions to
>         pim@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         pim-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         pim-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pim digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR,
>       should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
>       (gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 23:32:39 +0800 (CST)
> From: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
> To: <pim@ietf.org>, <pim-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [pim]  mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky
>         PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different
> draft
> Message-ID: <202106292332391181893@zte.com.cn>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear All,
> I've read the draft and support its adoption by the PIM WG.
> I have several non-blocking comments and a question:
> - it seems that some additional references to RFC 7761 can be placed in
> the Abstract and Introduction section.
> - the introduction of a BDR PIM-SM router improves the convergence and
> reduces the impact of the DR failure on the multicast service. However, the
> detection, except for the DR transmitting PIM Hello with Holdtime = 0
> before going down, is in tens of seconds. Hence, it might be helpful to
> reference draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case and describe the interworking
> aspects, if any.
> - Section 4.4.1 (and 4.4.2 through the reference to 4.4.1) propose that a
> new PIM-SM router initially advertises its priority as 0. Hence my
> question, would it be beneficial if that new router switches to the
> configured value if the failure of DR or BDR is detected?
>
> Regards,
> Greg Mirsky
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> ?????/?????/???????  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
> www.zte.com.cn
> ------------------Original Mail------------------
> From: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
> Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM
> DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
> To: pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
>
>
> Hello again,
> It's been a week with no response to this adoption call. We will give it
> another week and if still no response we won't adopt at this time.
> thanks,
> mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:11 PM
> To: pim@ietf.org
> Subject: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR,
> should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
> Hello all,
> We are picking back up on this thread and using it as a call for adoption.
> During IETF 110 we had 9 in favor and 2 against adoption. Please read the
> draft:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-mankamana-pim-bdr%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%2BdhjjMXC5bHiaYai9if7HSE0N%2BRlwdEFubLfz%2FlKODo%3D&amp;reserved=0
> and indicate if you support adoption.
> If you don't support adoption please indicate whether you would support
> merging with draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement or have other suggestions. The
> minutes are included below to show the options with progressing this draft.
> thanks,
> mike
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr - Mankamana
> Lenny - this concept of priority and preemption is not unique to pim:
> vrrp, rsvp with backup paths, etc. can we leverage from those? Was it
> protocol level stuff or vendor implementations, those could be good
> examples. leave it up to implementations?
> Alvaro - what has me confused is talking about two solutions that are
> basically the same thing. A good argument has been made on how the previous
> draft isn't needed. It would be nice if all the solutions was considered in
> one draft. We seem to be circuling around implementations, first resolve if
> we want single or multiple solutions. And then understand how they interact.
> Stig - I agree. We initially only had one sticky DR in other draft, now we
> have two proposals. Do we actually need two solutions? Are there different
> use cases where one is better then the other?
> Alvaro - I'm not advocating for one or two, the wg to decide. maybe we
> define multiple use cases. Needs more coordination.
> Stig - if the wg decides we only need one solution that covers all the use
> cases we probably only want to publish one of them.
> Mike - some may want to have a hello option and others may not. And right
> now we only have one wg document. Let's say we do adopt this draft, should
> we hold off on progressing both documents until they are both progressed
> together?
> Alvaro - That would be nice. they are not dependent on each other. they
> don't have to progress together. progressing close would be nice.
> Stig - we shouldn't progress any document until we carefully decide what
> solution is best or if we want both solutions. Lets compare both options.
> Mike - let's poll for adoption.
> Stig - just because we adopt both documents doesn't mean we publish both
> documents.
> Poll - 9 in favor and 2 against. Will take to the list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:29 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; zhang.zheng <
> zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <sridsant@cisco.com>; pim@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR
> improvements or different draft
> Thanks every one for input. So I would update Sticky PIM DR without
> capability option in draft-mankamana-pim-bdr. Will ask for adoption in
> coming IETF.
> Mankamana
> ?On 12/4/20, 9:04 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Stig:
> Hi!
> > Thoughts? Do you see this differently?
> I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and
> interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear.
> This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09:
> ===
> (2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet.
> Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?  Given
> that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and ?5 says that if no
> options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router
> implementing this specification tell the difference?
> I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
> relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
> asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.
> ===
> The WG is already aware of both drafts.  Assuming
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both
> solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with
> me).
> Thanks!
> Alvaro.
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pim Digest, Vol 206, Issue 6
> ***********************************
>