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

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
>