Hi, While I agree that the echo reply is not needed to bootstrap BFD, and that the BFD Disc TLV is not needed in the reply, doing this doesn’t break anything. So I don’t see the proposed changes as being necessary.
Does anyone remember why RFC5884 has the echo reply, was it to potentially save an echo request from egress for bidirectional case? Also, if we do go ahead with the proposed changes in this draft, we’ll have to fix this errata<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5085>. Regards, Reshad (speaking as individual contributor). From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, October 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpign...@cisco.com> Cc: "m...@ietf.org" <m...@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify-00.txt 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) <cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> 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, car...@cisco.com<mailto:car...@cisco.com> “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 <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> 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: <internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> 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 <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>, Yanhua Zhao <zhao.yanh...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhao.yanh...@zte.com.cn>> 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/draft-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<http://tools.ietf.org/>. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
