Re: Comments on draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01.txt

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Eric Rosen :
>
> - The draft  gives the  appearance of recommending  (even if  not requiring)
>   both the "outsourced RP" model and this particular method of deploying it.

The draft actually has 5 short paragraphs about co-located-RP: 
- 2 paragraphs are quotes of the requirements draft reminding the
context and the benefits of the feature
- 2 paragraphs detail the disadvantages of this approach
- the last paragraphs concludes by saying "should be implemented" but
"must not be required to use"

It seems to me that this is quite balanced...


> - I  don't think  the impression  you get  from the  draft is  that it  is a
>   "relatively minor optional feature".   That sort of minor optional feature
>   would typically get a "may" rather than a "should".

The use of "should" in the text, and not "SHOULD" precisely shows that
the "level of requirement" wasn't strongly defined, this is typically
the type of wording that gets refined once a document progresses
further...


> > can you  explain how  implementing this optional feature is 
> > "primarily a simplification for the vendor" ?
> 
> It allows a vendor to ship product which supports only the "PE as RP"
> model, while  still claiming  to have  ASM support  in its  MVPN
> product. This is considerably less  of an  implementation effort than
> is required  to really provide ASM support.

It doesn't simplify anything as soon as it is required to support
deployment of ASM without using this feature. Which precisely is what
our draft is suggesting to impose. 

> > The mVPN requirements (RFC4834) actually talk in terms of "MAY"
> > about this feature. Is it the difference between "MAY" and "should",
> > that makes you so strongly react ?
> 
> No objection to MAY.

(Which I wouldn't object either.)

So, in the end, this colocation-RP subject that takes 10% of your
comments seem to be resolved by a "should" being refined into a "MAY". 
Do such type of changes usually justify opposing that a draft becomes a
WG doc ?

-Thomas