Hi Loa, Thanks for the comments. I will surely update the section in the next-version.
Regards, Saumya. -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:15 PM To: Dikshit, Saumya <saumya.diks...@hpe.com>; draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extens...@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-01.txt Saumua, Inline please (and yes I understand that this is nit-picking, but sometimes one could do that :) ). On 2022-05-31 07:15, Dikshit, Saumya wrote: > Hi Loa, > >>>> Can you please explain what it means. > <saumya> It implies any re-use of the values from allocated via > [I-D.draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping] when the same-parameter is referred to in > [I-D.draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension]. First, if this text goes into the RFC, it is totally redundant. Second, I can understand that this is useful information to have while this is an individual or a working group document. Though I think that "inherit" is misleading (for me it implies some type of ownership). With some experience to guide documents through more or less trick IANA allocations I would change the the IANA Considerations to: 8. IANA Considerations This document makes no request for IANA allocations. This document is dependent on the IANA considerations discussed in [I-D.draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping]. This section should be removed before publication as an RFC. > >>>> . I would be appreciated if you notified the wg when you allocate >>>> parameters from this registry, or notify our LSP Ping registry experts, >>>> Carlos and Mach. > <saumya> +1. It's the first cut of the document. Yes, understood. I was really thinking about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping when I said that :). But down the line it is applicable to this draft also. /Loa Expecting few more changes based on further discussions and before firming-up on newly introduced parameters. > > Regards, > Saumya. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu] > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 5:36 PM > To: draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extens...@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-01.txt > > Authors, > > the IANA section of this draft says: > > This document inherits all the IANA considerations discussed in > [I-D.draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping]. > > Can you please explain what it means. > > WG Chairs > > The MPLS working group have put in quite a bit of effort to keep the LSP Ping > parameter registry consistent. I would be appreciated if you notified the wg > when you allocate parameters from this registry, or notify our LSP Ping > registry experts, Carlos and Mach. > > As for the allocations made in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping, I see no > problems. > > /Loa > > > On 2022-05-30 13:36, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> >> Title : EVPN Mpls Ping Extension >> Authors : Saumya Dikshit >> Gyan Mishra >> Srinath Rao >> Santosh Easale >> Ashwini Dahiya >> Filename : draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-01.txt >> Pages : 13 >> Date : 2022-05-30 >> >> Abstract: >> In an EVPN or any other VPN deployment, there is an urgent need to >> tailor the reachability checks of the client nodes via off-box tools >> which can be triggered from a remote Overlay end-point or a >> centralized controller. There is also a ease of operability needed >> when the knowledge known is partial or incomplete. This document >> aims to address the limitation in current standards for doing so and >> provides solution which can be made standards in future. As an >> additional requirement, in network border routers, there are liaison/ >> dummy VRFs created to leak routes from one network/fabric to another. >> There are scenarios wherein an explicit reachability check for these >> type of VRFs is not possible with existing mpls-ping mechanisms. >> This draft intends to address this as well. Few of missing pieces >> are equally applicable to the native lsp ping as well. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> INVALID URI REMOVED >> m-evpn-lsp-ping-extension/__;!!NpxR!lEe_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZQuQGvmY >> o0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8F3stf1U1sL_-lytd2tpLPBA$ >> >> There is also an htmlized version available at: >> INVALID URI REMOVED >> t-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-01__;!!NpxR!lEe_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZ >> QuQGvmYo0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8F3stf1U1sL_-lytdDWrMYII$ >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> INVALID URI REMOVED >> um-evpn-lsp-ping-extension-01__;!!NpxR!lEe_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZQuQG >> vmYo0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8F3stf1U1sL_-lytdHP6k-GY$ >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at >> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> i-d-annou...@ietf.org >> INVALID URI REMOVED >> announce__;!!NpxR!lEe_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZQuQGvmYo0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8 >> F3stf1U1sL_-lytdHnzVWHg$ Internet-Draft directories: >> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> Ee_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZQuQGvmYo0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8F3stf1U1sL_-lytdpBw >> _Lig$ or >> INVALID URI REMOVED >> _;!!NpxR!lEe_QiwECVEbzttiQKMYfUBRmIZQuQGvmYo0-NYkeju_lyYKP0b8F3stf1U1s >> L_-lytdf3uGqj4$ > -- Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
