Subject: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:55:24 +0800

Working Group,

It has been pointed out that there is overlap between
draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding and
draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.  Within the overlap
there is a critical piece of the protocol specification.
Having this specified in two places is likely to result
in non-interoperable implementations.

The working group chairs have discussed the overlap and
propose the following as a means of moving forward.

1.  Issue a single poll to adopt both documents together as
working group documents

2.  Assuming that the drafts are adopted, complete
draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding as the
normative protocol specification of the piece within the
overlap.

3.  Where mechanisms in draft-wijnanads are needed in
draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp have the latter document
reference the necessary sections of the former document.

MPLS Working Group Chairs
Loa, Ross, George

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: IJsbrand Wijnands <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:57:05 +0100

Dear Chairs,

I agree with the proposed resolution below.

Thx,

Ice.

On 04 Dec 2013, at 15:55, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:00:07 +0000

Dear Chairs,

I agree and fully support the solution proposed.

Cheers,
Jeff

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 06:05:36 -0800

Loa,

> reference the necessary sections of the former document.

This would be fine with me, *provided* that
draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding will add the encoding
of two new mLDP TLVs: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV, and Transit
IPv6 Shared Tree TLV, as these two TLVs are required by the mechanisms
defined in draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

Yakov.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:25:08 +0000

Dear Chairs,
Thanks,
Arkadiy

On 04 Dec 2013, at 15:55, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.  Within the overlap there is a 
> critical piece of the protocol specification.
> Having this specified in two places is likely to result in 
> non-interoperable implementations.
> 
> The working group chairs have discussed the overlap and propose the 
> following as a means of moving forward.
> 
> 1.  Issue a single poll to adopt both documents together as working 
> group documents
> 
> draft-wijnands-mpls-in-band-wildcard-encoding as the normative 
> protocol specification of the piece within the overlap.
> 
> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp have the latter document reference 
> the necessary sections of the former document.
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:52:59 +0800

Yacov,

I can't see that this flies! In fact it is counter to the wg chair
proposal. We intended to keep the overlap as small as possible,
specify a function in the document that needs the function. We did
not intend to increase the overlap, but keep it as small as possible.

You have this already neatly specified in draft-rekhter- let it stay
there.

/Loa

--

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:51:33 -0800

Loa,

> You have this already neatly specified in draft-rekhter- let it stay

I am fine with keeping the encoding and the procedures for the two
new mLDP TLVs: Transit IPv4 Shared Tree TLV, and Transit IPv6 Shared
Tree TLV in draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

However, I have a question on the following:

What do you define as "the overlap" ?

Yakov.