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

Greg Mirsky <> Wed, 31 May 2017 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5AA1294F0; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWsw5LPuBHsb; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DE101272E1; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l18so2892896oig.2; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1hBoRf7X47F42iubZDIgM5LTbp+j+KMLOFDYcRsIK+Q=; b=Lk40M0dkrf98S5i4ez/fKwiqvBq7RudArwDe2SDVQ6DcFLiznz2X/NNZ5QWha+VYcT D8pJ+4eGUr0FQqm0Mq2vldxSptNqRMEtzrlJW/mFhmUNUJmKZp9cs680B4bWUmpaJfLd wTc8/zzLkRAlwtzc++7MBcHiQ4dxZ+v0dy8WRLGfMCPv9iZgjnYx+0DrCtSuFBvrbyS+ IFHF9Qxvi88+B+bBZa7dw1cq2TGC//2dPPeO87fBSCqNTUXMPpXVHqW63Ke8hZQgPY23 0akvggDR/wq3GHwKO50s+TGNrj/MTmMSSAfIG94zfd+ZoD3OXXylFhcbz7zVWtMcLdkv WJBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1hBoRf7X47F42iubZDIgM5LTbp+j+KMLOFDYcRsIK+Q=; b=LhT+FAXS7c4WJ65Ys75Y/8HuV5a/fFJgP5A/M81MCQMvtGHJbHGCAbOyuuvd9K8fPo ++DVCkP0PIjsWgmSZnmB3PaDD9ZuhRbRlkVjCV0J7PddnNKR2djX/c9eF+dXzolD/erT cIRtJZv3PeDkoWf7k20av9kwnO+lRllC1fL1yqROy3EYD0AGGotWlE2saIORfnPm/wvK EjOvlQIaaXL61S19P35ErMk5HNRHNdx/IrRJiUQwbriwgvGTh7v0BLTnamhBFUx79anw yWXknNtPIVwU2lY2/Hv5UNIWJ237YTVjncfeETvWOIBC65Y+wOfYxjNvUsEeAcdoOWmX +THA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCw3/98ChyQqHqZjWqI5K3HZjO6jOOS38cvfvVPRDGaln38l4OS X0+7xBA72nWXyJJHdNCK0bbdSV/q7Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q23mr10343542otg.52.1496208798013; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:33:17 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043c4becea93860550cb41e1"
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, 31 May 2017 05:33:20 -0000

Hi Carlos,
after more consideration realized that you have brought up valid concern
and I propose the following change to address it:

   - in section 3.1.1


Exactly one sub-TLV MUST be included in the Reverse Path TLV.
   If more than one sub-TLV is present in the Reverse Path TLV, then, in
   order to avoid ambiguity of which of TLVs to use, the egress BFD peer
   MUST send Echo Reply with the received Reverse Path TLVs and set the
   Return Code to "Too Many TLVs Detected" Section 3.2.


One or more sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BFD Reverse Path TLV.The
BFD Reverse Path TLV MAY list a stack of FECs that directly
corresponds to the label stack.

   - section 3.2 - remove the first bullet describing return code "Too
Many TLVs Detected"
   - section 5.2 - remove request to allocate return code value for
"Too Many TLVs Detected"

Hope these changes will address your concern.



On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Greg Mirsky <> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> I don't know of any IETF regulations or rules that prescribe to prevent
> progressing a document based on type of IPR Disclosure. I'd note that
> authors did their best to ensure that appropriate IPR Disclosures were
> filed as soon as possible. I believe that there were no concerns regarding
> timing of the IPR Disclosures related to earlier versions of the draft.
> Regards,
> Greg
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 5:33 PM, <> 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