I also support the adoption as co-author for the same reasons as outlines by Greg.
Kind regards, iLya Varlashkin > On 14 Sep 2020, at 23:24, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I support the adoption as co-author, for the reasons outlined by Greg. > > Cheers, > Jeff >> On Sep 14, 2020, 2:17 PM -0700, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, wrote: >> Dear All, >> I support the adoption of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd by the SPRING WG for the >> following reasons: >> optional control of the reverse path of the BFD session in SR-MPLS >> environment; >> optional reduction of OAM data exchanged between BFD systems by using the >> BFD in Demand mode over an SR-MPLS tunnel; >> ability to monitor p2mp SR policies. >> I want to highlight the third point. BFD (based on RFC 5880) has solutions >> for lightweight mechanisms to detect defects in a p2mp tunnel. The solution >> defined in RFC 8562 allows egress BFD nodes to monitor the state of the >> head-end and related part of the multicast distribution tree. In some >> scenarios, it is desirable for the head-end to be able to know the state of >> an egress node and egress's view of the distribution tree. Three options >> listed in RFC 8563: >> head notifications with multicast polling >> head notifications with composite polling >> unsolicited notifications >> The two first options described in RFC 8563 in detail while the third is >> very sketchy. This is the option discussed in the draft, pointing to the >> solution defined in draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd. >> >> Always welcome your questions. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM IETF Secretariat >>> <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd in state >>> Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Joel Halpern) >>> >>> The document is available at >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/ >>> >>> Comment: >>> The authors have requested (quite some time ago) WG adoption for this >>> document. Looking at the archive, there was anot a lot of discussion, and >>> some concerns. Rather than try to infer the current state from the old >>> discussions, the WG Chairs have decided to issue a WG call for adoption. If >>> you support this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list. If you >>> oppose this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list. Silence >>> does >>> not mean consent. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel M. Halpern >>>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
