Re: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll (WGAP) on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the quick update, the figure looks good.

I noticed that the type of the Source Address TLV is set to 0, which aligns with the type defined in the “G-ACh Advertisement Protocol TLV Registry”  in RFC 7212. While since this draft introduces a new channel type, does this mean a new registry for the TLVs under this new channel type is needed, or they can share the same registry?

Best regards,
Jie

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 9:00 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll (WGAP) on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd

Hi Jie,
following on your suggestion, I've added the figure in the working version. I greatly appreciate it if you can check the attached diff and let me know if I've got your idea right.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:05 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Jie,
thank you for your kind words and suggestions. Will work on adding the figure to the draft. In case of the Non-IP encapsulation of Multipoint BFD, the Source Address TLV is considered as part of the message on the message on the new Generalized Associated Channel Type (Multipoint BFD Session). That message includes BFD Control message and the Source Address TLV. We'll display these =lements in the new figure.

Happy Holidays to All!

Kind regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:14 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Loa,

I've read this document and support its adoption.

I have one comment which could be resolved either before or after the adoption.

Section 3.2 describes the Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD, in which a new ACH channel type is defined, and it says a Source Address TLV MUST immediately follow a BFD control message.

I'd suggest to provide a figure of the packet format of non-IP Multipoint BFD encapsulation. And one related question is: is the source address TLV considered as part of the Multipoint BFD packet or not?

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 6:36 AM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll (WGAP) on
> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
>
> Working Group,
>
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
>   draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
> as a MPLS working group document.
>
> Though "two weeks" brings all the way into the holiday season. so it will be a
> bit longer.
>
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>). Please give a technical motivation for your
> support/not support, especially if you think that the document should not be
> adopted as a working group document.
>
> There is no IPRs disclosure against this document.
>
> The authors have all stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are
> unaware of any IPRs that relates to this document.
>
> The working group adoption poll ends January 4, 2022.
>
> /Loa
> --
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls