Re: [mpls] applicability of draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-02

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov at juniper.net>]

Ice,

> >>
> >> I don't really see what's wrong with what I proposed:
> >>
> >>      "When PIM-SM is used in ASM mode, the usual means of discovering
> >>      active sources is to join a sparse mode shared tree.  However, this
> >>      document does not provide any method of transporting a sparse mode
> >>      shared tree across an MPLS network.  To apply the technique of this
> >>      document to PIM-SM in ASM mode, there must be some other means of
> >>      discovering the active sources.  One possible means is the use of
> >>      MSDP, but specification of such means is outside the scope of this
> >>      document".
> >
> > What's wrong with what you proposed is that it still refuses to
> > explicitly spell out that supporting the ASM service model over an
> > MPLS network is outside the scope of this document. In other words,
> > what is missing in what you proposed is the following sentence:
> >
> >   Supporting the ASM service model over an MPLS network
> >   is outside the scope of this document.
> 
> I already tried to explain to you that this is too restrictive. Only a  
> specific part of the ASM model is out of scope, that that is what Eric  
> proposed in the text above. Its wrong to claim the whole ASM service  
> model is out of scope. One example, in ASM the (S,G) inherits the  
> (*,G) O-list. This is typical behavior that is needed in combination  
> with MSDP and BGP A-D S-A's.
> 
> You're response to this is probably that the draft needs to spell this  
> out. However, this is basic PIM ASM behavior that does not belong in  
> this draft. All the PIM ASM procedures apply, except what has been  
> written above by Eric.

Since as you said above part of the ASM model is out of scope, then
the document should say the following:

   This document specifies support for some, but not all parts 
   of the ASM service model. 

Yakov.