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

Support the adoption of this draft. 

The co-existence of the function defined in this draft and the function defined in the PIM DR Improvement draft still needs to be discussed. 

But it can be improved in future version.

And as the co-author of the PIM DR Improvements draft, it's OK to merge this draft with the PIM DR Improvement draft or not.

Thanks,

Sandy

原始邮件

发件人：MichaelMcBride
收件人：pim@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年06月22日 09:11
主 题 ：[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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mankamana-pim-bdr/ 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%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C1371b163f51b4883950a08d8b279595e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637455581580050390%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=8Se09pvNO1NUcVnU4d6Vr9FzukkThNNRhypGbfu1SUM%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim