Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-05

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,
thank you. I've uploaded the new version
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case>
that includes all updates.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:37 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Greg:
>
> Hi!
>
> Please submit a new version — I’ll take a look at the details then.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On September 9, 2021 at 8:09:24 PM, Greg Mirsky ([e-mail])
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alvaro,
> I've updated the working version to follow your comments. I've removed
> references to DR/BDR and, as a result, the reference to
> draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement. As you've pointed out in comments, a tail
> detects the failure of the head and then follows procedures defined in RFC
> 7661 as if that was the failure in PIM Hello protocol. I've decided to
> leave the section about the use of p2mp in PIM DR Load Balancing as that
> mechanism is defined in RFC 8775, well after RFC 7661 was published.
> Attached, please find the new working version of the draft and the diff
> that highlights all changes.
>
> I greatly appreciate your feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 3:27 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alvaro,
>>
>> thank you for the clarification. I see your point much clearer now,
>> notably regarding references to BDR's behavior. I'll take the time to
>> update the draft accordingly and get back with the updated version. Many
>> thanks for your patience and the most helpful suggestions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg Mirsky
>>
>>
>> Sr. Standardization Expert
>> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
>> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
>>
>>
>>
>> E: [e-mail]
>> www.zte.com.cn
>> Original Mail
>> *Sender: *AlvaroRetana
>> *To: *gregory mirsky10211915;
>> *CC: *[e-mail];[e-mail];
>> [e-mail];[e-mail];
>> *Date: *2021/08/25 13:54
>> *Subject: **Re:[pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-05*
>> On August 23, 2021 at 11:34:50 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greg:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > thank you for your review, comments, and suggestions. I'm working on
>> > updating the document and preparing the -07 version. I have a question
>>
>> > related to the scope of the draft. You have identified the essential part of
>> > the proposal -  a new PIM Hello option to bootstrap a p2mp BFD session.
>>
>> > Indeed, any PIM  router can use it for advertising its My Discriminator to
>>
>> > other PIM routers on the shared segment. Then, as I can imagine, depending
>>
>> > on the role of that PIM router and the configuration on each neighbor, the
>>
>> > state of the advertising PIM router can be monitored. After detecting the
>> > failure of the monitored router, we can expect that the monitoring PIM
>>
>> > router will take the same actions as if the failure was detected according
>> > to RFC 7761.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Thus, it does appear that for all possible uses of p2mp BFD in PIM-SM, all
>> > that is needed is the new PIM Hello option and reference to the
>> > corresponding section in RFC 7761.
>>
>> In general, there's no need to point at specific sections.  In all
>> cases the BFD timeout indicates a neighbor failure and rfc7761 is
>> clear about what to do in that case.
>>
>>
>>
>> > But there might still be value in analyzing each case of using p2mp BFD in
>>
>> > PIM-SM separately (even as a small informational document), as you've noted
>> > in:
>> >
>> > In the general case... If tracking the sender of a Join, for example,
>> > the effect would be more significant: an outage would exist until the
>> > next Join is received.
>>
>> Honestly, I think that's about the extent of the additional analysis:
>> a sentence or two.  IOW, I don't think there's value in a separate
>> document that would just cover that (specially when compared to the
>> effort of going through the process, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Would you agree that the scope of this document includes the definition of
>>
>> > a new PIM Hello option BFD Discriminator to bootstrap a p2mp BFD session and
>> > a description of using that option monitoring PIM DR/BDR as a use case
>> > example?
>>
>> Well -- that's the point that I've been trying to make: the
>> applicability is general, the additional considerations (if any) are
>> minimal, etc..
>>
>> I would like the scope of this document to be the definition of the
>> new Hello option + a general description of the applicability to PIM
>> (all of PIM, not just the DR).   An example is ok.
>>
>> Just one more thing.  In my comments I keep ignoring the BDR because
>> the documents that define it are not done yet and I would like to
>> avoid holding up the publication of this draft.  Note that the general
>> applicability description (if made general enough) would cover the BDR
>> function as well -- after all the BDR is also a PIM router that others
>> can monitor.
>>
>>
>> If I'm still not being clear, I think we should plan on a f2f
>> conversation.  Please take a look at my calendar:
>> https://doodle.com/mm/alvaroretana/book-a-time
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>>
>>