Hi Eric, working group, Eric Rosen:
on whether or not you can avoid sending traffic uselessly [on S-PMSIs] in other ASes : this is mentioned in section 9.2.3.6 of draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast-bgp (the whole supersection is on I-PMSI route processing, but the text in 9.2.3.6 would apply equally well to S-PMSIs, possibly an improvement to bring there)I thought the policy of the "considerations" draft was to take account only of what is written in the base specs, not of "possible improvements". Obviously this policy is not being applied in an even-handed manner.
Not at all, my comment that you quote was a contribution to the discussion you started about P-tunnel aggregation, which is not yet covered by the draft. If we find that this point has to be covered, like for the rest of the document, we'll only talk about stuff that is described in WG specifications.
But let me guess, S-PMSI scaling is out of scope, right? ;-)
[...]
No doubt those issues are all out of scope ;)
As co-editor of the document, I would greatly appreciate if you could extend the scope of *your* comments beyond irony and smileys, to include constructive and motivated propositions to amend the document.
For what relates to the discussion in this thread (inter-AS and P-tunnel aggregation): - whether you find something in the document that you disagree with ; if yes, then please quote and explain what you find incorrect - or you think that something is missing, and then ideally a contribution would be the best, or at least guidelines on what we should add along with a rationale on why it is important to cover
Thank you, -Thomas