Re: Adoption call for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-* (ends April 30, 2017)

[Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]>]

I had raised the exact same concerns when this draft was originally posted.
So I concur with what Carlos says.

Cheers, Manav

--
Sent from a mobile device

On Apr 18, 2017 5:09 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Jeff and Reshad,

I do not support adoption of either draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-01 or
draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-01.

The overall problem and proposed solution did not seem to have received
much discussion. I was only able to find one email thread on the list, over
a year ago.

Regarding the problem statement, it’s strange that there’s no normative
definition or anything to MG-LAG… further, the meeting notes from IETF96
say things like:
          John Messenger: Would suggest work done in 802.1 to analyze those
          considerations with 802, it would be necessary to coordinate to
work
          with them. Send a mail to IETF-IEEE802 coordination group.
          Jeff Haas: Can we sign you as a reviewer to this draft?

What is the problem again, beyond what’s already well specified in RFC
7130? Is this again a quick “solution” looking for an RFC number?

Regarding the proposed solution, the one email thread seems to have pointed
out some serious issues not considered:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/OLWLCf6dn-3zxGZboTKVqUwSr6w
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/nwfLfudDdNw7PyJbpP-RVnVFMcQ
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/EuRObko0JO40_4UPB4buR0iyxcg
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/QUb5rj882TKeAAXyTof4ycq2DUg

Additionally, why the split into two drafts for this? The text of both
documents overall seems forgotten, even sloppy, with many typos (“MPSL”,
“Indvidual”, etc), and copy/paste text between the two documents. The
complete Introduction and Problem Statement are verbatim copy/paste, and
include things like:

  This document
   proposes how to overcome this problem if using IP or Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) data plane encapsulation.

which is not the case for either document.

Technically, using multicast here exercises a different path, and using a
GAL does as well. What are we testing?

Net-net, do not support.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

Working Group,

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls/

The authors of BFD on Multi-Chass Link Aggregation Group Interfaces for IP
and MPLS have requested BFD working group adoption for their drafts.

These drafts were previously presented at IETF-96.

Please note that IPR has been declare against these drafts.  The IPR
declaration may be found from the datatracker links.

Please indicate your support/lack of support to the mailing list.

-- Jeff and Reshad