[mpls] Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
I think that the discussion of the SPRING WG mailing list is quite relevant
to the WG LC on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid.
In the Shepherd review
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/8qEXWxGYnJPMfK1iLXCLRz9haD0/>
 of draft-ietf-spring-bfd
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/> Ketan Talaulikar
expressed his view on the distribution of SR Policy state information:

< major > SR Policy scale is generally expected to be higher than RSVP-TE

tunnels since the state is only present on the headend.


On the other hand, draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid depends on the
SR Policy state being maintained on the endpoint of the respective SR
Policy. As I understand it, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/> ensures
that both the headend and endpoint have the same information about the SR
Policy state and its components. But, for the case of BGP as the originator
of the SR Policy (draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/>), there
appears that the mechanism of distributing the SR Policy ensures that only
the headend of the SR Policy receives the relevant information.
Is there some inconsistency, disconnect between expected scope of SR Policy
state distribution from the point of view of experts in MPLS and SPRING WG.
Also, if indeed, only the headend of the SR Policy is required to maintain
the state of the SR Policy, could the PCE mechanism be simplified? And
furthermore, if the endpoint of the SR Policy doesn't maintain the SR
Policy state, how can the LSP Ping validate consistency between the data
plane and control/management plane view of the SR Policy?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 6:14 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This WG last call is now closed. Thanks to all who provided their
> responses. There was some support to progress the document. However, there
> were comments raised during this poll, and we expect the authors to work
> with the reviewers to address those comments before we can progress the
> document further.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG chairs)
>
>
>
> *From: *Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 1:12 PM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid (was Re: Working Group Last Call
> on draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid)
>
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> I am correcting a mistake to reference to the WG adopted draft (as opposed
> to the individual draft for the same document). Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek
>
>
>
> *From: *Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 9:53 AM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Working Group Last Call on
> draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid
>
> Dear WG,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid/>
> .
>
>
>
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
> to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
> you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version, and
> it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and
> nits are most welcome.
>
>
>
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail])
>
> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
>
>
>
> Note, currently there are no IPR disclosures
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid>
> against this document.
>
>
>
> This poll runs until August 20, 2024.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>