Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 01 November 2018 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF22D128CF2; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goHdopZLwc6W; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8F04128766; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g26-v6so18036358lja.10; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dN0lgUzXU04pk+LSAYyfhZSgnnYoNVyhzh3ncNX9gUU=; b=DNaXHQDq/lVaM8UWkcgoAhzADKY/gFcOdIkfYC1dN4erAyeZvhpbyIpwvELow/TKV+ iaUQAe6mLVCSU+lpMx3X5eEsXvBbRgYZadPZ2v0ux8vSUzFTNNe5Q2VVma2usCOnr+zx 36Gmg2IkrhT/ovgy4iu1XqMphBwKpYOuv6KJIDa4Xp6ueJobLZemPygFF7hIGA42NThK Z7IdRPUlRw3K2ynCj26YfU9T7p4ldH2MKbugTDl0ZHsT33NIT5hWTq6sTuTzv/WB3USN IMEyi9sZLGm7RLrBOP7SIhAgIuCkALo9NaQWJSd86yTjqbdrzcyBjtBEWy4QgrCR7gUF NlGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dN0lgUzXU04pk+LSAYyfhZSgnnYoNVyhzh3ncNX9gUU=; b=ejYBRjPzuy5G9UfCo2H730o6gzZyqMt6lNafpfjkL51e2W6VWoQew8EUdEG+n/5zpU JBwPlEWk58Tu97ROhE9UdiQ3FTiTNaA2zVJsSpTYHBSPS4oHP8LtCICao4Or4wfg5lsf m8jx1ZGvzmi5kOxsaOiWfkR06hfQSc97LLrrlgbfmG15NZxjXNKmBEja7dXuZid4TV/P dsy/bQC7eJ1NLOo/PbhBxbeuwX4B5aTiwpURP0k6cgJhGjC2zJCPo07BLV3c53A4Hhhk 7kuQ1S4AljoRtwuTDO0Acj44nYSYbAI0S5dFr5RMHgbbKC7DKdYSGxs30426QEp62iO2 i7eA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gL/doiQlMJ+Se5ZUmREBskI09pO/ceM8koq8DZvWhi4S6iNO+Dt tWm+l86OLr8dMldNPVpXX0bRws74Eb0lHN0QcgA/ORqG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ehmfavL/0daVnyOXbYdQjm7wD4e3d/kVJEhYz+ugYxBw0e6N2UreOu1mA9uxlYU0v0GZNqYmbj5EH8mMTdPGk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7a06:: with SMTP id v6-v6mr4492604ljc.77.1541105465825; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA=duU2kQWCg5CfidXAw8M+1VivgY=C2cehCcEVUQ0D_1yYxSg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVLDKOsaJhDzdDKmF9WEk1Hwg7-LN25onVdK3fXk7bHSw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXeQp+jFji-s5SsMDZTiwgNZ2Zfkcc0NHhwvnQ7jegdow@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU3eaXNPhSddxDxzrazL8NSwsVpR2TtkxLqH3YODBf=3Yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU3eaXNPhSddxDxzrazL8NSwsVpR2TtkxLqH3YODBf=3Yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:50:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXRdRXVk-VQNSub-q5ThDWJ=b0JGq5mxeow1duv-+crJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da1ebc0579a093b9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/zdq84jP-7NyszGq6NAxKH1W7luo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:51:11 -0000

Hi Andy,
many thanks for taking the time to review and comment back on the proposed
update. Your position is much clearer to me now, and I'll work on
additional updates. Will get back when I have the comprehensive text to
discuss.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:41 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> You didn't really address my comment: "I would have expected to see at
> least a reference to RFC 4687, "Operations and Management (OAM)
> Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks", and some text on how
> this draft addresses the requirements in that draft.".
>
> You added a reference in the security section, but nothing about how your
> draft addresses the 4687 requirements.
>
> Also, you didn't really address my next comment: "I also expected more
> text on the relationship between this draft and RFC 6425, "Detecting
> Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping"',
> and more of an explanation of why the keyword MAY is used in sections 4.1
> and 4.2 - what are the implications of following or not following the MAY
> in each case?"
>
> Regarding RFC 6425, I was looking for text along the lines of why one
> would choose to implement this draft rather than 6425 (or both), to give
> product implementers and network operators guidance on whether to use 6425,
> this draft, or both for MPLS p2mp data plane failure detection. Otherwise,
> why would they bother with this draft when they already have 6425 working?
>
> Also, in sections 4.1 and 4.2, you just added another MAY to section 4.1,
> but again, what happens if you don't do the MAYs in both sections? Why
> would I want to do the MAYs? Why would I not want to? The text doesn't say.
>
> Finally, in section 3, the following sentence doesn't scan:
>
>    The source IP
>    address MAY be drawn from the IP header if BFD control packet
>    transmitted by the head using IP/UDP encapsulation as described in
>    Section 3.1.
>
> Did you mean "uses" instead of "using"?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:05 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Andy,
>> thank you for the review and the detailed suggestions. Attached please
>> find the updated version of the draft and the diff to highlight the
>> proposed changes. Please let me know if these address your comments.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:11 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Andy,
>>> thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments. I'll
>>> work on the update to address them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:17 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve been selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer for
>>>> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04, which is currently a candidate for MPLS WG
>>>> adoption. This draft documents procedures for using BFD for multipoint
>>>> networks to detect data plane failures in MPLS p2mp LSPs.
>>>>
>>>> The BFD WG has been working on draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint, which
>>>> describes BFD procedures for multipoint and multicast networks.
>>>> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd uses that draft as a basis to detect MPLS data
>>>> plane failures for p2mp LSPs. This is a straightforward and useful
>>>> application of the BFD draft for MPLS data plane failure detection.
>>>>
>>>> However, I would have expected to see at least a reference to RFC 4687,
>>>> "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS
>>>> Networks", and some text on how this draft addresses the requirements in
>>>> that draft.
>>>>
>>>> I also expected more text on the relationship between this draft and
>>>> RFC 6425, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS -
>>>> Extensions to LSP Ping"', and more of an explanation of why the keyword MAY
>>>> is used in sections 4.1 and 4.2 - what are the implications of following or
>>>> not following the MAY in each case?
>>>>
>>>> The draft also needs an editing pass, for example "MaultipointHead"
>>>> for "MultipointHead" and some incorrect English grammar in several
>>>> places.
>>>>
>>>> Once these items have been addressed, I think that the draft should be
>>>> ready for an adoption call.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>