Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:29:00 +0000

Thanks every one for input. So I would update Sticky PIM DR without capability option in draft-mankamana-pim-bdr. Will ask for adoption in coming IETF. 

Mankamana 

On 12/4/20, 9:04 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:

    Stig:

    Hi!

    > Thoughts? Do you see this differently?

    I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and
    interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear.

    This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09:

    ===
    (2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet.
        Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?  Given
        that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that if no
        options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router
        implementing this specification tell the difference?

        I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
        draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
        relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
        asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.
    ===

    The WG is already aware of both drafts.  Assuming
    draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both
    solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with
    me).

    Thanks!

    Alvaro.