Greg, Some OAM considerations were added to the parent Replication Segment document, now RFC 9524, in section 2.2.2 and Appendix A.2.1 during the WGLC in SPRING.
-Rishabh On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:25 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Authors, > thank you for a well-written document that is a pleasure to read. I > believe that it is ready to progress. However, I have one general > observation to make. Although IETF documents are required to include an > analysis of the existing and any new security threats, and requested IANA > actions, there's no formal requirement to have a text that considers how > the defined mechanisms affect existing OAM tools, point to any existing > gaps that have been identified and need further work. As a suggestion, it > seems that because p2mp SR policies are different from well-known p2p use > cases, perhaps this document needs some additional text that points to the > OAM-related aspects, specific to p2mp SR policies, e.g., echo request/reply > (a.k.a. ping and traceroute), BFD, performance monitoring. WDYT? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:37 AM Michael McBride < > michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com> wrote: > >> Hello good people, >> >> >> >> Today begins a two week wglc for >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08. >> The related (normative) replication segment draft has now been published as >> a standards track RFC. The poll in the Brisbane pim room was 3 in favor and >> 0 against. Please respond with your opinions on the advancement of this >> draft. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > p...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
