Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff, et al.,
I now would like to comment on the point of "not satisfactory convergence"
of discussion. I assume that this is related to the discussion started by
the message
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg04146.html>addressed
to Xiao Min, not to the author of the draft. Oddly enough. But I've
responded nevertheless. Two questions were raised and both were explained:
- BFD Demand mode may be used to monitor the continuity of a path in one
direction and we have two specifications, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint and
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail, that describe how that can be done
without and with notification to the ingress BFD node;
- indeed, it is the liveliness of the path between the BFD systems that are
 monitored.
These were the questions and, in my opinion, both got answered. And now I
got to wonder what other questions need to be addressed? Plans to
implement? In my experience, evaluating a draft in WG AP I, explicitly or
not, answer to these questions:

   - whether the document is coherent;
   - is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks;
   - is the document technically sound?

And I cannot find any unaddressed question that falls into any of these
categories.
Much appreciate comments from BFD WG Chairs.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:52 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff, et al.,
> thank you for the update. I wanted to clarify the second item, the
> question related to the IPR Disclosure. The first disclosure used the
> "covenant not to assert" language. The second was to only update the filing
> status, not the licensing terms. I believe I've clarified that at the time
> of asking for WG AP. I was informed that there's the update to IPR
> Disclosure on this work submitted that restores the "covenant not to
> assert" language. I hope that can be taken into consideration by you and
> Reshad.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:10 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Apologies for the long delay in reply.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>> > I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you
>> and
>> > to publish them to the WG without naming the authors.
>>
>> Tersely:
>> - The document is not addressing fundamental issues.
>> - It is encumbered by IPR.
>> - Observed list traffic regarding question on the feature was not
>>   satisfactorily converging.
>>
>> > And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the
>> > Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft
>> are
>> > not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata
>> > surprised me.
>>
>> I will respond on my own analysis in detail hopefully this week.  I am
>> awaiting the resolution of a particular bit of correspondence before
>> determining the tenor of my response.
>>
>> -- Jeff
>>
>