The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <39E5C659.FFDE20C0@tellium.com>, Bala Rajagopalan writes:
> >
> > In the mean time we also need to make progress.  So the consensus we
> > reached is the consensus.  It can be revisited of course.  But as far
> > as progessing drafts, I'm expecting the authors of the kompella draft
> > to issue a draft with just the signalling aspects as a WG draft or
> > drafts depending on whether they decide to have a single document or
> > one for each of RSVP and LDP.
> 
> This statement is contradictory. If we're going to revisit, why issue a
> working group draft before finishing the discussion?
> 
> W.r.t consensus, I don't believe enough information was available
> at the last meeting to make a decision on proceeding with the Kompella
> draft as a WG draft, specifically, the need for flooding optitimization
> with the propsoed bundling approach. I don't mind if a decision on this
> is made after another round of discussions on the mailing list prior to
> the next meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bala



Bala,

I remember there being consensus at Pittsburgh on making the Kompella
bundles draft a WG item.

Use of the flooding optitimization is one means of improving the
efficiency of the IGP and is a separate issue.

Both the bundles and the flooding optitimization can stand alone.
Neither one depends on the other.  If used together they may
complement each other but use of either one separately is possible and
useful.

I don't see that any changes are required to the bundles draft to
accommodate the flooding optitimization.  If changes are required,
please point them out.

Curtis