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

Nic,

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.

Thanks!

Carlos.

> On May 24, 2017, at 2:33 AM, n.leymann@telekom.de <N.Leymann@telekom.de> 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:
>  
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2892/
>  
> 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
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls