Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-01

[Uwe Joorde <uwe at ujo.de>]

Ice,

I fully agree with you, keeping the draft together. In my opinion a
splitting would separate the draft in parts, which belong together and
would slow down the process to get a working group document. This
doesen't mean, that I don't accept Yakov's concerns regarding the
draft at the Stockholm IEFT meeting, but I would vote to keep the
draft as a whole for simplyfication.

Cheers, Uwe Joorde

2009/9/18 IJsbrand Wijnands <ice at cisco.com>:
> Dear WG,
>
> I like to get some input from the WG regarding
> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-01.
>
> I presented this draft in MPLS WG at IETF in Stockholm and got the comments
> from Yakov that this document contains work that belongs in L3VPN. It was
> suggested this document should be split in 2 different drafts, a non-L3VPN
> specific draft and a L3VPN specific draft.
>
> Considering how small the draft is and how close the non-L3VPN and L3VPN
> procedures are, I would prefer to keep this one draft. We can do a last call
> in both WG's and present it in L3VPN, but we do the work in MPLS.
>
> I would appreciate if you voice your opinion, after reading the draft :-)
>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
>
> Appendix:
>
> This is small explanation on why procedures in section 3.1, 3.2 are
> considered to be L3VPN. The draft describes a procedure to use a Recursive
> Opaque encoding to help an mLDP LSP traverse a MPLS core that does not have
> reachability to the root of an LSP. Using the recursive Opaque encoding you
> temporarily replace the original FEC with a new FEC that has a root that is
> reachable. This procedure is useful in the VPN context and in the non-VPN
> context. The only difference is that you add an RD to the encoding for LSP's
> are that originated in the VPN context.
>
>
>
>