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

"Anuj Budhiraja (abudhira)" <abudhira@cisco.com> Tue, 29 June 2021 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <abudhira@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF6D3A083D for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=RP5C3t+f; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=lCEMqvzv
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLfQrk299emU for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CA063A0882 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9218; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1624998778; x=1626208378; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mS6mbaUfafNnGJvGatzaywlZrgwmlulijYrQzhGh25A=; b=RP5C3t+fsaPJpZuN+tma3+GeUh0lyNlEng/l6Gjnn58Gh8366w+eIS/Y p6C7gQaqTdtvHtQeCdHhvuiz/xnWDNbnoTB5vmRrUh9cL9VU9wYw2ODhK MSe9UfNHCe2wwTa0F91gpAZ4zSkHJC2/fxM5hOt8YfHtzOPGAWXno+v1M o=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BiAwBUgttgl4wNJK1aHgEBCxIMQIMsKSh+WjcxhEiDS?= =?us-ascii?q?AOFOYhqA4pQj1OCUwNUCwEBAQ0BASoLCgIEAQGEUgIXgloCJTgTAgQBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wIDAQEBAQUBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBaIVoDYZFAQEBAwEBARALBhEMA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEsBAgLBAIBCBEEAQEDAh8HAgICHwYLFQgIAgQBEhsHgk8BglUDDiEBDpxvA?= =?us-ascii?q?YE6AoofeoEygQGCBwEBBgQEhTsNC4IyAwaBECqCe4JxU0qBF4VKJxyBSUSBF?= =?us-ascii?q?ScMEIFhgQA+giBCAQGBGkYXgwA2gi6CQIFFAQNDCgZbFgodPwgpCyqRZyWDC?= =?us-ascii?q?ZVEkSxbCoMgmD2FYAUmg2CLMoY3kEaVaIIZjTqQDoUEAgICAgQFAg4BAQaCb?= =?us-ascii?q?yIPgUxwFTsqAYI+UBcCDod/hiAZHm0BB4JEhRSFSnM4AgYBCQEBAwl8iwMBA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q?=
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:2vjH/hyu3BR+cljXCzM7ngc9DxPP8536IxII8Jc4hrMIeaOmrNzuP 03asPNqilKBHYDW8OlNhOeetaf8EXcB7pCMvDFnEtRMWhYJhN9Qk1kmB8iIWkPmMOPwYjM3H YJJU1o2t32+OFJeTcD5YVCaq3au7DkUTxP4Mwc9Jun8FoPIycqt0OXn8JzIaAIOjz24MttP
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:DnbrqKrj395eYxJawTT6zY4aV5uYL9V00zEX/kB9WHVpm5Oj9v xGzc506farslkssSkb6Ky90DHpewKdyXcH2/hvAV7EZnikhILIFvAi0WKG+V3d8kLFh5ZgPM tbAs1D4ZjLfCVHZKXBkUuF+rQbsaK6GcmT7I+0pRoAPGIaCZ2IrT0JcDpzeXcGIzWucKBJba Z0kfA3wQZIF05nCviTNz0gZazuttfLnJXpbVotHBg88jSDijuu9frTDwWY9g12aUIL/Z4StU z+1yDp7KSqtP+2jjXG0XXI0phQkNz9jvNeGc23jNQPIDmEsHftWG0hYczEgNkGmpD31L8Yqq iVn/7mBbUp15rlRBDynfIq4Xi77N9h0Q6+9bbSuwqcnSWwfkNKNyMGv/METvMcgHBQ4u2VF8 lwrj2kXtNsfGD9dG6W3am5azh60kWzunYsiugVkjhWVpYfcqZYqcgF8FpSC4poJlO21GkLKp gkMCjn3ocdTbpaVQGugkB/hNi3GngjFBaPRUYP/sSTzjhNhXh8i08V3tYWkHsM/I80D8As3Z WKDo140LVVCsMGZ6N0A+kMBcOxF2zWWBrJdGafO07uGq0LM2/E75T3/LI27ue3f4Fg9up/pH 0AaiIRiYcWQTOhNSSj5uw+zvn9ehT1Yd228LAq23FQgMyKeFPEC1zwdGwT
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,309,1616457600"; d="scan'208";a="717057719"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Jun 2021 20:32:57 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.17]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 15TKWusS018737 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:32:56 GMT
Received: from xfe-aln-005.cisco.com (173.37.135.125) by xbe-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:32:56 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xfe-aln-005.cisco.com (173.37.135.125) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:32:56 -0500
Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:32:56 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=nvQjtZ5ERFJ0rGGzAI1/GGxvXb2oJqqPZu3hTpuXrydvGAc5yGAFk4XfEyEOC4hbcUt6SpLH5JXTKRSUbTCiXMe5DBeKqcMU29FICF8V1TwPFRlgTKxYeuyPyeJznwk4FG6hTSo2PG9kuzIgEzRBZ7sTSiHFKF6fy6M0s4E6uTnFwJL1VsnwCTemFAIKguQWb2UM55XQBFKRP2xUuZDw9buj2XsGruuSvS24HmL+pwj8j2LmVdsqx0fMBluzPF6z7GK9N22IY6tOxztVmuDYhSDNYFjj5Ckbic4YoXWJIzrEfSwHTQ4ewGsx9mplgYcIkWJM6O5dLQIjOeg5TZELKg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mS6mbaUfafNnGJvGatzaywlZrgwmlulijYrQzhGh25A=; b=gA/j+PzAGO1vmVPVM+tVAdN7FiwVjmNqtHiYUBTuhqjZv01d9Q1WpaUHWADb3sZGltBukr0y461Nin7ykStQQVQUJuZlgaZpCe2rgkLZjCeoPjKVK9Zk4rMhH0C0WCAEF7vhAVEZ07t34hfvkSmVIsHxs+9B8NBfdZATTDEVIGnKlfkqtSoZ+klKTuR8DIRpycW7uFRsHqhip51tXNGiVe1YGj+mDjtyU62VMxjTUGRwnTudIDsYpVTEmzVfOnQAfv5mJVSmQwG4ZigrBb6bk+pBU7Vuzi1BOQvEIwuPqHgRNxJvZd6jz/GaKjMhH6hA+8NdbcUbWNsXsDPHF1Lrzg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mS6mbaUfafNnGJvGatzaywlZrgwmlulijYrQzhGh25A=; b=lCEMqvzvV4buwkE61ZgnlYfP5xYVcjIbE8wP4J303cqXJc+JJysYeDtM75MDOFWKRWVpwpqlB9sLBJfEEcAwt8VqKDJLYKSulBQohv+rvx/nbdtUPmwUuHy2nZGl1PigEHALXjZ7cixHiPEvaSpz/GO/x/iLo4Di27OZj1R/CTc=
Received: from SJ0PR11MB5183.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:2d9::6) by SJ0PR11MB4975.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:2d0::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4264.19; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:32:55 +0000
Received: from SJ0PR11MB5183.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::78d2:e686:7e77:709c]) by SJ0PR11MB5183.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::78d2:e686:7e77:709c%9]) with mapi id 15.20.4264.027; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:32:55 +0000
From: "Anuj Budhiraja (abudhira)" <abudhira@cisco.com>
To: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
Thread-Index: AQHXbGuTekVY6Gi9F0COm5pRLd+qvKsq/a+A
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:32:54 +0000
Message-ID: <3C4277F4-BC36-4489-A064-36A50966C0D7@cisco.com>
References: <BYAPR13MB258234EAE2EBD4D910D89A81D0099@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR13MB2582C023AA4EF23A1C27F199F4039@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB2582C023AA4EF23A1C27F199F4039@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.50.21061301
authentication-results: futurewei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;futurewei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1004::4b]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4fc30de2-4b9e-4897-ddef-08d93b3d1336
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SJ0PR11MB4975:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SJ0PR11MB4975B5D9814A9048CA618CC0C0029@SJ0PR11MB4975.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:SJ0PR11MB5183.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(478600001)(45080400002)(66574015)(6506007)(38100700002)(6512007)(6486002)(33656002)(36756003)(186003)(83380400001)(110136005)(2906002)(53546011)(2616005)(316002)(122000001)(86362001)(966005)(76116006)(71200400001)(66556008)(64756008)(8676002)(66446008)(66476007)(8936002)(66946007)(5660300002)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?utf-8?B?eXZUcWY1OEV2d0VYVk1va1ZSQVMyckhpMXRXem5VRW1EVkFSQUpkTjEzc0Zx?= =?utf-8?B?V2EwR1gzUEhGZHlTOFVMZUlVeWxnWjBGN0hjVDd0MkhtVDFZd0FTMUIvdHgy?= =?utf-8?B?dW01TjVuVkNUT0ZsZ3pPRDIrL3phRTc5VE0rOUtLTWFOYnl5aEpxcUg1U2ZG?= =?utf-8?B?c3NOdmJ3UWVVSnE5cUpTSmFsRllmZzlGQk9Ud0lYa2VYVzN6VHZrUzBGOENS?= =?utf-8?B?UkJ3UUdEaWRmblFJcSswcjhOOXJzQ2hoQXQwWTlLdVFFeUljMXVoZEhUcUdT?= =?utf-8?B?WlpZMEd2ZVh3Y3dYaUc5M2ZVUTNZQjlGdm9uT1Vma1kzQjh1QjJReWlDeitK?= =?utf-8?B?ODlOdy9VQ1VJc29KdDNkZk5hclZBOTkyUzhuaTNCbnhuc2tXOEVrbGxBbnpD?= =?utf-8?B?MVlXQ2pndHp0TEl3V1dQcHBsS1Z4YUEzSUMrT0RTbysvam9EQ3lKeHk2VXMy?= =?utf-8?B?MXkvMGZUZHZpOTlLVGpkcFFXbk9QS0ppMlhVLzhiNEdiRklHUGc2YWdsNmhj?= =?utf-8?B?eTNxSG42azJvSnpVQTJya2RsclUwNkZvS1JhcnZIOUlSeUY4VG4vOVYzcS9k?= =?utf-8?B?dVZKVVJ1Zk5jNjNwZHJnRVZhenVoQXlBdWgrb2wrSWlxSHZjNm4rU1I5ZndM?= =?utf-8?B?VThGc3pieW9VemVHRmZWYjNRdTFXTk5BdXYwZ0JuRWxub0ZndERRYUF1aWN3?= =?utf-8?B?RTZvTU1rUTZNRzU1YjhLQ0V2MW9hSUNMeWdMdnd0YldpSEI2RnBQdXRwS3pS?= =?utf-8?B?UjBWcFlrWlhNTHVSZzFWS3F1cFVybEp6Ky9hN1l4ZE1kdnFGZjFaYmJQZ2Ji?= =?utf-8?B?YytCbDVJcThxOGYvdWdRR2Q2aVZqY2ozaWpqR2xncVM3TndxTnpvbGhhT0R0?= =?utf-8?B?ejJMY3NidWtaMnVpSEpsRnRwZjVpZlY3Uyt6VEJxU3ZTVSt6cFZVYUNEQm1h?= =?utf-8?B?bTk4YXhpajR3cDdoV2tUM0ZHQmhVdlFsd1JJelBxaDBjd3dJZEdNUzhmOE9x?= =?utf-8?B?cW1qN3RXZWFvckUzeEJLU0JNUk1aTEdSNzNHNU1waWZYbTFGMDNzeWovUWg0?= =?utf-8?B?Nlpwbi9MQkRrdzQxVGZoQkZaYStHL25qTVI3OUNhUjNqcmFrNStmem5QYitL?= =?utf-8?B?SkJpVlFING16R3Q1NjB3ZFA4RDhzQ3NWSVFjUTZmRXhWWUtzczZyeVN5RnIy?= =?utf-8?B?ZVpsV0RScFg4ak4wZi9jb0RRT0loNExlTmZiQStOSHVPUkkyendmUTk2ZDls?= =?utf-8?B?TTJlSEY3VXZUbWJNQkJETUVGcStSbnR4bFVUbUZwYXdpdEVVMHAyR2ZaTk1i?= =?utf-8?B?NGFDZE52cjFOR0IvY1MxUXNXZ2dMbzluSWxxVGZpdW9KTGQyZ0RhZC9LanFt?= =?utf-8?B?SVZ4Ri9aakw0N3hFdjdBeWROUkhqQjJiNjc0MG9zRENySEV5S0gwTjlhSHhj?= =?utf-8?B?OC95YVpFK1Q3VmI1eTQyQndzR3V6c1BPUFp6QmJoOWxURDJ4djZzeDZvdXpV?= =?utf-8?B?a25yTDVNQmtEQitkajgwWmtmUGgyRUd0UEtwbmFGa2xBbmU2Z1BsZStIYm0y?= =?utf-8?B?ZzMyUjgvV21hUFhRVzB5RGRKbTR6WXVPekpPalkvaElwT2N5NDZiY3RPcS9z?= =?utf-8?B?NUxIWFpPN2YrS3I1cnVVTkMrM2hjYmQ2cFlac0J4UXorR0E4TUpveTFhNXp3?= =?utf-8?B?ZmJUZFh5T2duTDI4RjFmUG5oS3JiTzFhQ3ROa3hNd29CbUprKzNXRFFPKzV1?= =?utf-8?B?NlhCRVRSVU1Pek9QYjJ2OFdwd3lUK0tzMzRvTnFrNzVMVUw2UHU0aFFrNU1H?= =?utf-8?B?U3BNdHNjOGhYWEwrd1lodz09?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EE8D17B39E39DF4098B8C92D155ADD3B@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SJ0PR11MB5183.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4fc30de2-4b9e-4897-ddef-08d93b3d1336
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Jun 2021 20:32:55.0405 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5AV9ApBJE3SzPC2AGxVTU69Ygue5/HrKEGH3xdRdL6j+2AM0HywUgfhXiCFk75KaiWm0le4KGNCd4/606KHojw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR11MB4975
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.17, xbe-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/qVPAHvp5hT81ebtRVjXLJw8PzjM>
Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:33:03 -0000

I support the adoption.

- Anuj

On 6/28/21, 3:18 PM, "pim on behalf of Michael McBride" <pim-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:

    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>om>; zhang.zheng <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>cn>; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
    Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <sridsant@cisco.com>om>; 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