RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>]

> create 2 drafts, one documenting a PIM based solutions set, and an
> other based on BGP. Both moving forward on standards track. These

Agree - if the documents are not clear as is, should clean up the
documents vs. needing to refer to a 3rd document.

> documents don't need to make comparisons between BGP and PIM (as is
> done in the Morin draft), because this creates endless discussions
> and don't get us anywhere. It just needs to document how the
> different modules work together so that vendors can be interoperable.
> Each customer can choose the preferred approach and talk to the
> vendor for an implementation.

The Morin draft has been very helpful but it is still very confusing on
it's intention/impact - is it a requirements (non-solution favoring)
document or a comparison document which will impact the two other
drafts? It states in the abstract "mechanisms standardization should
favor". Does the sentence mean that non-favored mechanisms (e.g.
PIM-based) will be non-standards track? I'd favor as Nabil suggested, a
requirements document (with updates). Either it should have a re-write
before wg document status or else a clearly defined scope if it's a wg
document.

Deborah