[spring] Comments on Section 3// WG Adoption Call for draft-martin-spring-segment-routing-ipv6-use-cases

[Lizhenbin <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,



Section 3 of draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement presents as follows:



"  The source-based routing model, applied to the MPLS dataplane, offers
   the ability to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE
   to an egress PE, without any other protocol than IGPs (ISIS or OSPF).
   LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required."



In my opinion, now the IP network is alway to bear multiple services including unicast and mulitcast. Then LDP does not only mean RFC 5036, but RFC 5036 and mLDP. RSVP-TE does not only mean RFC 3209, but RFC 3209 and P2MP TE. If SR path does not cover multicast, "LDP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols are not required" is just to mislead.





Regards,

Zhenbin(Robin)







> Hi!
>
> This message officially starts the call for adoption for
> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
>
> Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft
> by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
>
> Some additional background:  We had issued a call for adoption for
> draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.
> From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the
> list, there was consensus to adopt.  The authors published
> draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the
> original draft without the solution being present in the use case
> description.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
>
> Thanks!