Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status

Sure, we can have discussion in this IETF over this topic. And it would help us to make progress .

From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 at 10:01 AM
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org>, Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status
Hi all

Here is my take on this. Previously the two drafts were solving
different problems. dr-improvement was focusing on sticky DR, which is
a useful concept. The bdr draft was focusing on backup-DR and did not
address sticky DR at all.

However, the bdr draft now includes a sticky DR solution as well. I
think the main thing we need to figure out now is which sticky DR
solution we think is best, or is there a need for both the solutions?

To make progress on this we should see what the pros and cons are for
each solution and their applicability. Are there certain cases where
only one of the solutions would work, or one has clear advantages? I
certainly hope the authors of the drafts can provide details on this,
but also hope to hear from the rest of the WG. It would be great to
have more discussion before the upcoming meeting. It would also be
great to have presentations and discussion at the meeting itself.
These drafts have been around for a while and we need to make progress
on this.

Regards,
Stig

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On February 15, 2022 at 11:57:49 PM, Michael McBride wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Both drafts are expiring this week and Stig and I were hoping to get a status
> > update and plan soon. Has anyone started a comparison between them? It would
> > be good to decide this year whether both drafts really are needed to progress
> > as separate solutions or whether they should be combined. We are willing to
> > help as needed.
>
> This is part of what I wrote when I returned draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement to the WG, in Oct/2020 [A].  At the time pim-bdr hadn't been adopted, so I edited that part out.
>
> =====
> Stig/Mike:  I looked at the archive [1] and the minutes [3], and it
> looks (in the minutes) like I said "clearly state why there are two
> different drafts for the same problem and why they aren't combined".
> :-(  The text in §5 does mention the difference, but it simply opens
> up more questions...and there is not a clear differentiation of when
> to use one or the other.  At first glance, they just seem to be two
> different solutions for the same problem.
>
> ...
>
> The other question in the minutes is about whether the 2 drafts should
> be merged, or even if that was discussed.  Was it considered?  What
> are the WG expectations when defining two solutions?  Are there really
> different use cases, or is the intent to simply let the market choose?
>  This document is on the Standards Track, but draft-mankamana-pim-bdr
> is marked as Informational -- are those the right statuses to use?
> Should they be Experimental instead?
>
> ...
>
> [1] mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/hWi6rDIbbhcEjEuQ_y3z1o6Wulw
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-pim/
> =====
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> [A] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/eo-udOxoKXhBiGhOV0zgqyZ8Uzs/
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim