[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Thanks Marina, Cutting down to just two points. * 4.1 – I don’t so understand what is contradict I originally wrote: 4.1 has: The S-BFD parameters are only meant to be used for SR LSPs and with PCEP peers which advertise SR capability. This seems to contradict: - The

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi WG, We have received a few more responses since the email below. While there is *support* to adopt this work, the chairs also acknowledge that it is not unanimous. A reminder that adoption does not imply the document is ready for publication; rather, it signifies that the work falls within the

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi Marina, Thank you for the reply. Regarding… > BFD is needed also for fast protection. In SR-TE with AS it’s useful. There > is no other way to configure S-BFD per LSP, only via PCEP. Yes, agreed on BFD usefulness in SR-TE, no debate there. The part I’m doubting and questioning is whether b

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi, dear WG and all, I’m working on new version of the draft – with some changes, not all. Hope, I’ll publish it in some number of days. Thank you all, who spent time and gave the comments. It’s very important for us and for who really think to use this draft. Some my answers are below: Andrew

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi PCE WG, Authors, Thanks for the submitting and working on the document. It’s a very clear read. I initially had some interest on this document when it was presented in one of the IETF sessions, however, find myself retracting on how to achieve it with encodings. I view using PCEP direct pa

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi, I had a quick look at this draft as part of the adoption poll. It is not unusual for a document being considered for adoption to need additional work. This document certainly needs some attention. I have included some issues and nits below, after my considerations with respect of ad

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi Dhruv and all, I read the latest draft and support its adoption. I see (from operator's view) very practical benefits from that work such as reducing signaling between PCE (controller) and routers, especially if we extended it towards SR Policy. So we can provision at once time both SR Policy

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi WG, We have not received sufficient feedback on the I-D, and at this point, it appears there isn’t enough support. However, considering the period of the year, the chairs have decided to extend the poll by one week. If you believe the I-D should be adopted, now is the time to share your opinio

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi, Samuel and all, Thank you for commenting on it. I'm working on the new version of this draft. All your comments will be considered and relevant to update. I'll update the new version soon. Also I'll change the microseconds units. [Logo] Marina Fizgeer Sr. Man

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 9:05 AM To: res...@yahoo.com; rtg-...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com Cc: draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-paramet...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03 Hi, I agree

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi authors of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters, A few comments from my side: * Abstract is saying that extension is applicable to all setup types, but 1st paragraph of overview section is saying: "The S-BFD parameters are only meant to be used for SR LSPs and with PCEP peers which adve

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

ator". Regards, Quan [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03 Reshad Rahman Tue, 07 January 2025 00:13 UTCShow header Hi, My PCE exposure is a bit dated, so I can't really say anything about adoption. I took a look at the doc:- It's not clear t

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03

Hi, My PCE exposure is a bit dated, so I can't really say anything about adoption. I took a look at the doc:- It's not clear to me why Min Tx Interval is in milliseconds in 4.3.2.2 (as opposed to microseconds as in RFC5880)- The base BFD doc (RFC5880) is in the reference list, but the S-BFD docu