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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>