Re: [mpls] Reviews of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify

Hi Adrian,
thank you for sharing the update on the discussion with Chairs of BFD WG
andpointing us to the the RFC 5884 Errata
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5884>. Looking through
the errata, I don't see a report that covers any of issues addressed in our
draft. The suggestion that this might be an opportunity to correct some
issues with 5884bis might be a reasonable way forward, as I've noticed in
the Errata a statement that is not accurate characterization of BFD
Asynchronous mode:

The ingress LSR follows the procedures in [BFD] to send BFD Control

packets to the egress LSR in response to the BFD Control packets

received from the egress LSR.

If that is what the BFD WG prefers, then it does make sense to use this
draft as part of the work. On the other hand, the draft addresses only
issues related to the use of LSP Ping, which has a number specifications
developed by MPLS WG, without any impact on the BFD. That is our rationale
to bring this work to the group.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:05 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Authors,
>
> Developing the question of updating RFC 5884 further...
> The chairs have talked about this and consulted with the BFD chairs.
> We do not understand why an update to a BFD working group RFC is being
> brought to the MPLS working group even though it could be construed as
> being
> in scope as MPLS-related work.
> We have examined the email thread rooted at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/zI8zMXoKyXtt0dWxjb02tXXiBiM/
> and it appears that there was some debate about whether it was necessary to
> make this update to protect a "naif implementation" and to protect against
> something "that doesn't cause any harm".
>
> Further, we note that there are related Errata reports filed against RFC
> 5884. If those reports are insufficient, should the RFC itself not be
> revisited?
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 30 January 2024 13:52
> To: draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify@ietf.org
> Cc: 'mpls-chairs' <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Reviews of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify
>
> Hi authors of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify,
>
> In preparation for considering an adoption poll on your draft, I solicited
> some reviews from members of the MPLS Review Team.
>
> Carlos sent his review to the list, and you can see it at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ch5giz4OzWVtDW2YIp225wVAISU/
>
> A further review that reached me contained two thoughts:
> 1. Which WG does this document belong to? This document says it plans to
> update RFC 5884, which is the product of BFD WG.
> 2. Will this update make some existing implementations not complying to
> standards? For example, the text in the end of section 3 refers to
> I-D.kompella-mpls-lspping-norao and says the return mode in this case MUST
> NOT be set to 3.
>
> Additionally, Joel Halpern sent a pre-emptive adoption poll review which
> you
> can see at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/SzxY7OC763zjbeW57iHdlLfq2Fw/
>
> While there is some work that needs to be done on the document, nothing
> seems to be so big that it cannot be handled later (as updates after an
> adoption poll). However, if you want to get on and address the issues in a
> new revision, that might be a good thing.
>
> However, the question about in which working group this draft belongs is an
> important one. I am currently discussing this with the BFD chairs and will
> get back to you. If you have opinions, please state them.
>
> Meanwhile, there is no harm in doing a quick IPR poll, and I'll start that
> in another thread.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>