Hi Carlos, thank you for taking interest in the proposal, much appreciated. Please find my notes in-line and tagged GIM>>.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < [email protected]> wrote: > Greg, > > This document seems to say “use “Do not Reply” reply mode, and even if you > reply do not use the BFD Disc TLV, because it is not used. > GIM>> To be precise it says "SHOULD use "Do not Reply" thus preserving compliance of implementations that do otherwise. > > Wouldn’t it be simpler to say “follow RFC 8029, and the ingress does not > care about the BFD Disc TLV in the reply”? This would not suddenly make > uncompliant existing implementations, potentially. > GIM>> I agree that normative language on handling echo reply is bit restrictive. My goal is to have good discussion and see what others think. > > Also I wonder if this should be bfd-mpls instead of mpls-bfd, given where > RFC 5884 was advanced. > GIM>> Probably it should be the way you've suggested. Hope it is not a big problem for individual draft. > > Thanks, > > — > Carlos Pignataro, [email protected] > > *“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself > sound more photosynthesis."* > > On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > this new document proposes clarification of two questions brought up in > course of recent discussion of RFC 5884: > > - use of Return mode values in bootstrapping BFD session echo request; > - inclusion of BFD Discriminator TLV in echo response to the > bootstrapping echo request. > > Your comments, questions are always welcome and greatly appreciated. > > Regards, > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:46 AM > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd- > bootstrap-clarify-00.txt > To: Gregory Mirsky <[email protected]>, Yanhua Zhao < > [email protected]> > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify > Revision: 00 > Title: Clarifying Use of LSP Ping to Bootstrap BFD over MPLS LSP > Document date: 2017-10-18 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 4 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet- > drafts/draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/d > raft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > doc/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00 > > > Abstract: > This document, if approved, updates RFC 5884 by clarifying procedures > for using MPLS LSP ping to bootstrap Bidirectional Forwarding > Detection (BFD) over MPLS Label Switch Path. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > >
