Hi Jeff, tank you for your review and comments. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 6:31 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Alvaro, > > Here is a small review comment on draft-ietf-spring-bfd. > > In section 6, discussing BFD Echo (not Echo BFD), the text states: > > "A BFD Control packet MAY be used as the payload of Echo BFD." > > BFD Unaffiliated Echo[1] has recently been sent to the IESG. The work in > that draft covers the details for BFD to "talk to itself". I'd suggest > leveraging this as a reference in the spring document. > GIM>> Would the following update be acceptable to you: OLD TEXT: The use of other types of Echo BFD payload is outside the scope of this document. NEW TEXT: The use of Echo BFD function in modes other than defined in [RFC5880], e.g., [I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo], and other types of Echo BFD payload are outside the scope of this document. Note that the binding SID specific text is still appropriate in the spring > document. > GIM>> Do you see any additional specific uses of a Binding SID for BFD over SR-MPLS beyond the BFD Echo function? > > Beyond that, the document is straight forward and captures the expected > discussion points for use of BFD in a spring environment. > > I'd encourage the spring chairs to also reach out to the MPLS working > group for detailed review of the LSP Ping updates. They look fine to me, > but I lack depth in those procedures. > > -- Jeff > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14 > > On Dec 2, 2024, at 2:51 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [Sorry for the bad formatting. :-(] > > [cc'ing the bfd WG] > > > Dear WG: > > This message starts a two-week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-bfd, > ending on December/16. From the Abstract: > > This document describes using BFD for monitoring individual segment > lists of candidate paths of an SR Policy. It documents the use of > various BFD modes and features such as BFD Demand mode, Seamless BFD, > and BFD Echo function with the BFD Control packet payload in the > SR-MPLS > domain. Also, this document defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping > to bootstrap a BFD session, with optional control of selecting a > segment > list in the reverse direction of the BFD session. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/ > > > Please review the draft and consider whether it is ready to move towards > publication as an RFC. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate > support or opposition -- this is not a vote and silence is not consent. > > If you are willing to provide an in-depth review, please go ahead. > > The chairs are particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people > who are not authors of the document. The Shepherd review pointed at a few > items that would benefit from further consideration by the WG, please take > a look: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/E_31dtV4Qx2MM7u9nxuVUnzMOjk/ > > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro (for the spring-chairs) > > On December 2, 2024 at 2:42:25 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > [cc'ing the bfd WG]Dear WG:This message starts a two-week WG Last Call for > draft-ietf-spring-bfd, ending on December/16. From the Abstract: This > document describes using BFD for monitoring individual segment lists of > candidate paths of an SR Policy. It documents the use of various BFD > modes and features such as BFD Demand mode, Seamless BFD, and BFD Echo > function with the BFD Control packet payload in the SR-MPLS domain. > Also, this document defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to > bootstrap a BFD session, with optional control of selecting a segment > list in the reverse direction of the BFD session. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/ Please review > the draft and consider whether it is ready to move towards publication as > an RFC. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support or > opposition -- this is not a vote and silence is not consent. If you are > willing to provide an in-depth review, please go ahead.The chairs are > particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not > authors of the document. The Shepherd review pointed at a few items that > would benefit from further consideration by the WG, please take a look: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/E_31dtV4Qx2MM7u9nxuVUnzMOjk/ > Thanks!Alvaro > (for the spring-chairs) > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
