Re: WGLC comments on bfd-mpls-05

[Rahul Aggarwal <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Please see below:

<snipped>

<rahul>
> I don't think that makes sense as this document relies on
> > configuration.
> > Further there is no point in signaling LSP-Ping capability if BFD
> > capability cannot be signaled.
> >
> > I fail to see why it is not enough to spell out that this document
> > requires configuration. It doesn't preclude capability signaling to be
> > added by another document.
>

<tom> 	I agree for the static case things are explicitly configured.

We are in sync. This is the key point.

tom>
> However, I think the confusion here lies in the fact that we could
> configure the capability, and then advertise the BFD/VCCV capability,
> right?

This spec requires configuration and should just say that signaling of
capabilities is out of scope.

tom>
> But those are explicitly detailed in the vccv-bfd document
> (draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-01).  It might be most appropriate to simply
> remove the forward reference to the vccv-bfd stuff from here, and only
> refer to this document from there.
>

How about removing the forward reference to draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-01.
But leaving the reference to RFC5085 to say that there could be
other ways to identify OAM packets other than ttl=1, for PWs ? And let
that be an informative reference ?

rahul