Dear All, please find my notes and questions in-lined tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < [email protected]> wrote: > [A very late reply to this email, but since no-one else replied… to add > topic diversity to the list.] > > SPRING chairs, > > Sending this note only for completeness, and not as indication of interest > or support of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt. > Since draft-mirsky-spring-bfd has no provenance metadata > (Replaces/Replaced-by tags), I thought it useful to point to the ancestry > of this text. > > TL;DR: > > Two big concerns: > 1. Review of this text (on a different draft) in the MPLS WG is > unacknowledged and undressed. Basically this text has technical > showstoppers. > GIM>> To the best of my understanding, all technical questions have been addressed. The latest update also includes the Implementation Considerations section. I believe that it is up to WG chairs to evaluate whether WG has reached consensus (rough) on the WG draft. Carlos clearly has his opinion but, I believe, that is not necessarily correctly reflects the opinion of MPLS WG. > 2. Potentially applicable IPR, as per the email below, is undisclosed. > GIM>> As I understand the IPR process at IETF, a third party that believes that the particular IPR (application or patent) is applicable to the given document can file the IPR Disclosure. If Carlos believes that there is an undisclosed IPR, then he should follow the IETF process. As for me, to the best of my understanding, there's no undisclosed IPR related to this draft. > > Besides there being no apparent interest, there’s serious issues. > > Longer version: > > Martin, At the time you were shepherd of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed, so > you might remember this. > > Much of the text of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd seems to be coming from > earlier versions of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed. > > The text was removed from draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed during reviews in > the MPLS WG, instead of fixing it, and now it seems to have found its way > into a new document and a new WG, bypassing the previous review. > > All the text from draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed about SRv6 was removed > here: > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-03.txt > All the text from draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed about SR MPLS was removed > here: > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05.txt > GIM>> Authors always welcome and appreciate comments. Changes in scope were presented and accepted by MPLS WG. > > All that text received critical review and comments that can be found for > example at: > > - > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed%22%20%22Segment%20Routing%3A%20MPLS%20Data%20Plane%20Case%22 > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed%22%20%22Segment%20Routing:%20MPLS%20Data%20Plane%20Case%22> > - > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed%22%20%22Segment%20Routing%22 > > > And the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed decided to remove it as > per: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/imnwjd0the9F-F4gdHxh_J3xzq4 > > This particular email to the MPLS WG has interesting text: > " > * authors decided to remove sections Segment Routing: MPLS Data Plane > Case* > > *... * > * The new version has been submitted as* > * draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-05* > * (see below) and, to the best of our knowledge and understanding, > earlier* > * disclosed IPR is no longer applicable to this version.* > “ > > Basically this seems to imply that there was IPR applicable to that text, > that removing it made it not applicable to the MPLS WG doc. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed > > However, that text seems to have founds its way to this new doc, but there > does not seem to be any IPR disclosures. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-mirsky-spring-bfd > GIM>> As noted above, authors of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd believe that there is no undisclosed IPR relevant to the draft. Any third party that believes otherwise is free to follow the IETF process of IPR disclosure. > > There are still significant outstanding technical issues with this text, > raised in the MPLS WG under a different I-D, but still apply, as for > example: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/pPq_LO8E0vIKKYLiHa50z7cFWks > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/iXsENQuPWmmgsueNiUMlyRCcu4U > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/X1a595fcp8D-WYGO9UkVsqum23s > Etc. > GIM>> As I've noted above, all the technical comments to draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed have been addressed by authors. Changes to the scope of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed were made by the authors after discussion in MPLS WG. > > Back to your regular programming (no pun intended :-) > > Best, > > Carlos. > > On Aug 2, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > with this update, we've added a section on using BFD for Multipoint > Networks (RFC 8562 and RFC 8563) for proactive defect detection in > Point-to-Multipoint SR Policies. > Authors believe that the draft is stable and addresses p2p, as well as, > p2mp use cases of SR-MPLS. We appreciate your consideration of WG adoption > poll for this specification. > > Regards, > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:38 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt > To: Ilya Varlashkin <[email protected]>, Gregory Mirsky < > [email protected]>, Ilya Varlashkin <[email protected]>, Jeff Tantsura > <[email protected]>, Mach Chen (Guoyi) <[email protected]> > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt > has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-mirsky-spring-bfd > Revision: 08 > Title: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment > Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane > Document date: 2019-08-02 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 13 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-08 > > Abstract: > Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source > routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is > encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded > as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is > expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document > defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD > session, control path in reverse direction of the SR-MPLS tunnel and > applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain. > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
