I had raised the exact same concerns when this draft was originally posted. So I concur with what Carlos says.
Cheers, Manav -- Sent from a mobile device On Apr 18, 2017 5:09 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> wrote: Jeff and Reshad, I do not support adoption of either draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-01 or draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-01. The overall problem and proposed solution did not seem to have received much discussion. I was only able to find one email thread on the list, over a year ago. Regarding the problem statement, it’s strange that there’s no normative definition or anything to MG-LAG… further, the meeting notes from IETF96 say things like: John Messenger: Would suggest work done in 802.1 to analyze those considerations with 802, it would be necessary to coordinate to work with them. Send a mail to IETF-IEEE802 coordination group. Jeff Haas: Can we sign you as a reviewer to this draft? What is the problem again, beyond what’s already well specified in RFC 7130? Is this again a quick “solution” looking for an RFC number? Regarding the proposed solution, the one email thread seems to have pointed out some serious issues not considered: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/OLWLCf6dn-3zxGZboTKVqUwSr6w https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/nwfLfudDdNw7PyJbpP-RVnVFMcQ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/EuRObko0JO40_4UPB4buR0iyxcg https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/QUb5rj882TKeAAXyTof4ycq2DUg Additionally, why the split into two drafts for this? The text of both documents overall seems forgotten, even sloppy, with many typos (“MPSL”, “Indvidual”, etc), and copy/paste text between the two documents. The complete Introduction and Problem Statement are verbatim copy/paste, and include things like: This document proposes how to overcome this problem if using IP or Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane encapsulation. which is not the case for either document. Technically, using multicast here exercises a different path, and using a GAL does as well. What are we testing? Net-net, do not support. Thanks, — Carlos. On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: Working Group, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls/ The authors of BFD on Multi-Chass Link Aggregation Group Interfaces for IP and MPLS have requested BFD working group adoption for their drafts. These drafts were previously presented at IETF-96. Please note that IPR has been declare against these drafts. The IPR declaration may be found from the datatracker links. Please indicate your support/lack of support to the mailing list. -- Jeff and Reshad
