Hi Shraddha, thank you for your expedient response and consideration of the draft-mirsky-spring-bfd. Of course, both drafts can be developed and discussed separately. I hope that you'll kindly consider adding normative references to RFC 7110 and draft-mirsky-spring-bfd as the source of the idea of LSP Ping return path and the non-FEC Path TLV respectively.
Regards, Greg Regards, Greg On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
