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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie,
thank you for the feedback. Please find my notes in-line below under the
GIM>> tag.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:02 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick update, the figure looks good.
>
GIM>> Thanks! Will wait for Loa to guide us on when to upload the new
version.

>
>
> 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?
>
GIM>> You're right. Our intention is to re-use the existing TLV unless
we've missed something preventing that.

>
>
> 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]>
> 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]>
> 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]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 6:36 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [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]) 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]
> > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>