Greg There is also draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-04 - P2MP Policy Ping<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/04/> which is also waiting for last call.
Hooman From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rishabh Parekh Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 11:40 AM To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Cc: Michael McBride <michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com>; p...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] [pim] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ pim mailing list p...@ietf.org<mailto:p...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
