Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

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.