Re: [pim] [spring] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy

Hi Rishabh,
thank you for pointing that out to me. The Appendix in RFC 9524 is helpful
by demonstrating how the ubiquitous ping operation works in the presence of
the Replication segment. I think that it would be also helpful to extend
that example by demonstrating the operation of a traceroute, particularly
when DDMAP TLV is included in the echo request message, with a replication
node as a transit node.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 8:40 AM Rishabh Parekh <rishabhp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg,
> Some OAM considerations were added to the parent Replication Segment
> document, now RFC 9524, in section 2.2.2 and Appendix A.2.1 during the WGLC
> in SPRING.
>
> -Rishabh
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:25 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Authors,
>> thank you for a well-written document that is a pleasure to read. I
>> believe that it is ready to progress. However, I have one general
>> observation to make. Although IETF documents are required to include an
>> analysis of the existing and any new security threats, and requested IANA
>> actions, there's no formal requirement to have a text that considers how
>> the defined mechanisms affect existing OAM tools, point to any existing
>> gaps that have been identified and need further work. As a suggestion, it
>> seems that because p2mp SR policies are different from well-known p2p use
>> cases, perhaps this document needs some additional text that points to the
>> OAM-related aspects, specific to p2mp SR policies, e.g., echo request/reply
>> (a.k.a. ping and traceroute), BFD, performance monitoring. WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:37 AM Michael McBride <
>> michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello good people,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today begins a two week wglc for
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08.
>>> The related (normative) replication segment draft has now been published as
>>> a standards track RFC. The poll in the Brisbane pim room was 3 in favor and
>>> 0 against. Please respond with your opinions on the advancement of this
>>> draft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spring mailing list
>>> spring@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list
>> pim@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>>
>