[spring] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-10

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

LGTM — Thanks!


When Ketan tells is we’re ready to move forward I’ll do a deeper read of
the document.

Alvaro.

On September 9, 2024 at 10:44:22 AM, Greg Mirsky ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi Alvaro,
thank you for your thoughtful and helpful suggestions. Please find my notes
below tagged GIM>>. I've included the diff to highlight the updates applied
in the new working version (somehow, idnits missed another outdated
reference).

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:05 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On August 28, 2024 at 7:31:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>
> Greg:
>
> Hi!
>
>
> ...
> > > 516 12. Security Considerations
> > >
> > > 518 Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884],
> [RFC7726],
> > > 519 and [RFC8029] apply to this document.
> > >
> > > < minor > I think some more text would be required here to cover SR
> > > specific aspects? Right now, it is only BFD specific.
> >
> > GIM>> Added the reference to RFC 9256. Would you suggest additional
> > references?
>
> I would like to see text explaining why no other considerations,
> specific to what is being specified in this document, are needed.
>
> For example, something along the lines of: "This document describes A,
> B, and C.  These new mechanisms only add XXX, so there's no risk of
> additional security issues..."  [Just making this up!]
>
GIM>> I've used it, and now the section reads as follows:
NEW TEXT:
   This document describes the specifics of using MPLS LSP Ping, BFD,
   and BFD for multipoint networks for the Segment Routing network with
   the MPLS data plane.  Since all the discussed tools have been used in
   MPLS networks, there are no additional security risks.  Security
   considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC8562],
   [RFC8563], [RFC7726], [RFC8029], and [RFC9256] apply to this
   document.


>
> Also, the Intended Status of this document is "Experimental".  Please
> include a section about what you expect the experiment to be -- what
> you expect implementations to experiment with -- what do you expect to
> learn -- how will you know if the experiment is successful?
>

GIM>> I propose the following new section:
11.  The Scope of the Experiment

   The experimental part included in this document is limited to the use
   of Non-FEC Path TLV in BFD Reverse Path TLV [RFC9612].  The goal of
   the experiment with the Non-FEC Path TLV is validation that its use
   does not adversely affect the defect detection in the forward
   direction while reducing the number of used BFD sessions between a
   pair of LSRs without reporting additional false-negative events.


>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>