Re: [mpls] WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Wed, 24 May 2017 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63571129B7E; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hynGLauzYiEB; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A31127369; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3790; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495640203; x=1496849803; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=CHn/GRw6IZTv7miMkmX6L7hna4nz2m4IVpTVHUFzpeg=; b=FrwkBxone6VFdKU+nzOPHRq3501N1qsg46zOG0J6o1g1MG1gpqolyFI3 6JhTHbS4trM0UUL56PB2aDfBpWwGcEyb9ECk/oXjRR/0mJ4K3iqk3/4dT WHWSWgsQXv5vJ6RGOymFGiNzPrxeVEW/kWi3fDfDM1eCppbsRTbdpsUfE I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,386,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="252344804"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2017 15:36:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4OFagHT009029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 May 2017 15:36:42 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:36:41 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 24 May 2017 11:36:41 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: "" <>
CC: mpls <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Thread-Index: AdLUcMggDQBvyYSLQg6+G4R+EOGYRgAVEiEA
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 15:36:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] WGLC for draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 15:36:45 -0000


I do not support advancing this document in its current form. It has many technical deficiencies, some of which are listed and described below.

I also believe your WGLC note should have been much more detailed and comprehensive.

I believe this is the 3rd WGLC on this document, correct? (That gives a new meaning to “Last” :-) If so, that should have also been clarified in the WGLC email, with a much more clear explanation and comprehensive set of details of how concerns were discussed and addressed.

> The authors have updated draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed and think that the draft is ready for WGLC.

I am very concerned that there was no discussion on the list of any of those changes.  The authors believe the draft is ready — do you believe so as well, Nic? Was a shepherd review performed and is that available?

> Please note that draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed did not pass the
> previous working group last call, because of an IPR disclosure:

Is that the 1st or 2nd WGLC? I think this statement is an oversimplification. There were many technical concerns. 

Anyway, scanning through this document, some technical issues:

1. This approach assumes that FECs do not ever change. A reverse path is instructed at setup/bootstrap with MPLS LSP Ping — what happens if paths change?!? If a return tunnel is suddenly deleted from underneath?
2. “Case of MPLS Data Plane” — is there any other non-MPLS case? This points to the fact of lack of review and editorial sloppiness.
3. “Exactly one sub-TLV MUST be included in the Reverse Path TLV.” — so basically, no Tunnels can be return path?!?
4. The “Use Case Scenario” uses 2119 language in a way that does not make sense.

Please note, this is not an exhaustive list, but a 2 minute scan through the doc.



> On May 24, 2017, at 2:33 AM, <> wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
> The authors have updated draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed and think that the draft is ready for WGLC.
> Therefore this e-mail starts a WG LC which will end on the 7th of June.
> Please note that draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed did not pass the
> previous working group last call, because of an IPR disclosure:
> The authors have updated the draft and they believe that the IPR is no longer in scope.
> Please notify the list if you still think the IPR is an issue and please state if you think it
> is OK to continue with the publication of this document.
>   Best regards
>     Nic
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list