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

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:14:00 +0800

On 2013-12-13 00:51, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Loa,
>
>> 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.
>
> 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:
>
>    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.
>
> What do you define as "the overlap" ?
>
> Yakov.

Yakov and Ice,

I'm sorry that I left the two draft hanging in a no mans land for
such a long time, other than traveling, being busy with other working
group issues, and having to do a couple of restarts there are no excuse.

Yakov,

It is my understanding that the overlap is summed up in the following
text from draft-rekhter:

   "This document also identifies the deployment scenarios where BGP
    Source Active auto-discovery routes will not be used."

More specifically, the overlap is the case where the service provider
has provisioned the network in such a way that the RP for a particular
group G is always between the receivers and the sources.  If the
network is provisioned that way, the ingress PE for (S,G) is always
the same as the ingress PE for the RP, so the SA A-D routes are never
needed.

Draft-rekhter should be scoped to the case where the network is not
known to be provisioned in this way.

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair

>
>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2013-12-06 22:05, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>>> Loa,
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>
>

-- 

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

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:58:49 -0800

Loa,

> known to be provisioned in this way.

Could you please propose the text that you'd like meto insert in
draft-rekhter ?

Yakov.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:30:23 +0800

Yakov,

I will try to do so, as I understand it you agree to go ahead with
the wg adoption poll for draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
encoding, while we sort out the text that needs to go into
draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

I will start this process as soon as I have a slot.

/Loa

--

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:30:22 -0800

Loa,

> draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp.

I agreed to the plan you proposed in your e-mail on Dec 4, 2013.
According to this plan

However, what you doing now is *not* what you proposed in the plan,
as now you issued a two week poll on adopting just
draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding as an MPLS working
group document.

Yakov.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:09:44 +0800

Yakov,

On 2014-02-05 22:30, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> However, what you doing now is*not*  what you proposed in the plan,

I found no way to hold the draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
encoding further, it is almost 5 months since that document were ready
to move.

However, I'm prepared to go to wg adoption poll on draft-rekhter-
mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp very quickly if the following update is made.

OLD

    This document uses BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes, as
    defined in [MVPN-BGP]. This document also identifies the deployment
    scenarios where BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes will not be
    used.

NEW

    This document uses BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes, as
    defined in [MVPN-BGP].

    In a deployment scenario where the service provider has
    provisioned the network in such a way that the RP for a particular
    ASM group G is always between the receivers and the sources. If the
    network is provisioned in this manner, the ingress PE for (S,G)
    is always the same as the ingress PE for the RP, and thus the
    Source Active A-D routes are never needed.  If it is known a priori
    that the network is provisioned in this manner, mLDP in-band
    signaling can be supported using a simplified set of procedures.
    Specification of the simplified procedures supporting this scenario
    is outside the scope of the present document.  See [draft-wijnands-
    mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding]. A service provider will
    provision the PE routers either to use [draft-wijnands] procedures
    or to use the procedures of this document.

/Loa
--

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:07:19 -0800

Loa,

>     or to use the procedures of this document.

The revised draft (see below) contains the change you suggested above 
(with some minor edits). 

Given that, please do as you proposed in your plan on Dec 4, 2013 - 
issue a *single* poll to adopt *both* documents *together* as working 
group documents.

Yakov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:    Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:01:53 PST
To:      <[email-masked]>
cc:      <[email-masked]>
From:    <[email-masked]>
Subject: I-D Action: draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs
        Authors         : Yakov Rekhter
                          Rahul Aggarwal
                          Nicolai Leymann
                          Wim Henderickx
                          Quintin Zhao
                          Richard Li
	Filename        : draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-08.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2014-02-07

Abstract:
   When IP multicast trees created by PIM-SM in Any Source Multicast
   (ASM) mode need to pass through an MPLS domain, it may be desirable
   to map such trees to Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths. This
   document describes how to accomplish this in the case where such
   Point-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths are established using mLDP.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:20:21 +0800

Yakov,

On 2014-02-08 01:07, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> issue a*single*  poll to adopt*both*  documents*together*  as working
> group documents.
>
> Yakov.

If you mean that it will send one single mail to the working group
for the adoption poll I will not do that. I've done that mistake and
it is very hard to sort the comments in such a way that I have them
available when I need the for a particular document.

Also, the mail you quote is not a promise to adopt *both* documents,
that it up to how the shepherd/chairs evaluate the responses we get
on the poll.

The *togetherness* you get here is that the polls for the documents
are started reasonable close together.

And - the feedback will be evaluated for each document independently.

Sorry if that was not clear from the December mail, but it hs been
a very longstanding IETF practice.

/Loa

--