Hi Greg, Thanks for comments. I do see similarities in the protocol extensions although the usecases are different. IMO, it would be good to keep the usecase documents separate but work together to Define protocol extension that can be used by both.
Rgds Shraddha From: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:29 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; spring <[email protected]> Subject: Followup on my comments on draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam Dear Authors, et al., I've wanted to continue with my comments to the draft you've presented at MPLS WG meeting on Monday. As I've mentioned, please review draft-mirsky-spring-bfd<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmirsky-2Dspring-2Dbfd_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=0R9c5FMTGo82tAX5sd_nxg54UG2eSJiL7pGv8DpvBmw&s=885F2-lSJoVpYtIREsDbfsgJ5-uVJYMPlSAoN50oOQ8&e=> and Section 4 Use Non-FEC Path TLV in particular. Welcome your comments, questions, and hope we can work together on the solution of our use cases. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
