From nobody Tue Mar 28 19:11:29 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC97C151710; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:11:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Zf8EM5YnEdb; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BEE9C151534; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id y4so57471093edo.2; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680055885; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IejqllQ7DLBZ6DmNz4xQH1wEbRsHEWp3M+IiDSHA3e4=; b=YByhx09hjTCjZ8P1chdRF6S7m9wgt6LfnAunbgpAVeIsWkwrJGwdZYCbkHfxIEheXF 2J31CDr+O01CzB5VxSS+5gYYgOIiF6cupZKlyvdy+0vXwGUiJlnYqijUBw2EP2Pe7Ji7 5BjgXHGZlTsAzJ/N6iX/HC+ZEIlGE7q4VUnOoX68gDO/zOXWoQI0+00OQ5iMfhnrlnv2 WJvt0+3X8v3nx5/qRpQus6DFl66/wAbiddECkedveyfmHO+r05Jhmg09cc9BOIb2xd2i /IT2pSM1y1t2lo3dGBNhQKQUklSNf2+/sDXgz/yn2LtJHS+RZdso3La67/3CkVaH5BUI Yznw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680055885; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IejqllQ7DLBZ6DmNz4xQH1wEbRsHEWp3M+IiDSHA3e4=; b=F32EbcI1M441gzX2+nKckcVO40Oa1L6L83DW/laKk1LrGkEUbU/EAmWu/fm2hoRoo7 etfyHY4jHcAi1Za/Ld05JxzaVMRsjAoh5A1v8RYsTECkSczZTrlYUYKaK03iqpfiFiNH T+Td8O69T9IvpbCGhTmQuJOgyg+v5fPvMkIvsDo2AFYB5xLY2wN3HPs+xsNW0TLTHpiD MjOG5XmLtyvb1XZQNOsMd3f2Z6/KXXAzNQRjIeR2e9u3OYaDQVo9yrQq6QlvLg96gFD6 o2HpturMI75PtLrUQX1zI8f/hp2NXd63IktlVLhr1XJskngASzvp63za8aNYK6U8EfBS c7Eg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dm4/J//emAjH4YSWSFKxLkK5WGAAr6TQ9YKe4EsF0EzaPSsafI P4alHRSZa6HlOnzOvnxNGDp9AdOIHLpYwmXMj5aOlPYc670VM8tc X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bwq8828wzJVGw2Ar0jOnd9t5UehtWL3nrsIP74I5FgxMdi9IjnbJ4UDLkEFfHZDMEI06TirDQLsBl2JgGoB1Y= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a993:b0:946:f3f9:67ac with SMTP id jr19-20020a170906a99300b00946f3f967acmr263916ejb.3.1680055884613; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:11:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <167990761218.28475.14370047592920159610@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ketan Talaulikar Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:11:13 +0900 Message-ID: To: Greg Mirsky Cc: spring , spring-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000348b3c05f8007ec2" Archived-At: Subject: [spring] Pending work items on draft-ietf-spring-bfd X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 02:11:28 -0000 --000000000000348b3c05f8007ec2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Greg/Authors, I believe this draft still needs work before it is ready for WGLC. Specifically, it does not cover the use of S-BFD for the monitoring of SR Policies and AFAIK this is the more widely used than the mechanism specified in the draft currently (i.e. than the bootstrap via LSP Ping to setup a "normal" BFD session). I am not saying that the mechanism in the draft cannot be used, but progressing this document toward publication without reflecting the other alternate mechanism that IMO is far more widely implemented and deployed will provide a somewhat misleading picture. My request to the authors is to consider inclusion of text from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/ in this WG document. We can discuss f2f during this week if you agree. I would like us to seek inputs from implementers and operators on which of these two mechanisms they prefer/use. Including this in the document would also be helpful. Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM Greg Mirsky = wrote: > Refresh and to update author's contact information. > > Dear All, > the draft is stable and the authors believe it is ready for the WG LC. We > appreciate the WG Chairs' consideration for starting the WG LC. > > Regards, > Greg (on behalf of the authors) > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: > Date: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt > To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) , Greg Mirsky < > gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Ilya Varlashkin , Jeff Tantsura < > jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Jiang Wenying > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt > has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-spring-bfd > Revision: 06 > Title: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment > Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane > Document date: 2023-03-27 > Group: spring > Pages: 14 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/ > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.html > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-bfd > Diff: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-spring-bfd-06 > > Abstract: > Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source > routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is > encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded > as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is > expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document > defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD > session, control an SR Policy in the reverse direction of the SR-MPLS > tunnel, and applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain. > Also, the document describes the use of BFD Echo with BFD Control > packet payload. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > --000000000000348b3c05f8007ec2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Greg/Authors,

I believe t= his draft still needs work before it is ready for WGLC.

Specifically, it does not cover the use of S-BFD for the monitoring o= f SR Policies and AFAIK this is the more widely used than the mechanism spe= cified in the draft currently (i.e. than the bootstrap via LSP Ping to setu= p a "normal" BFD session).

I am not sayi= ng that the mechanism in the draft cannot be used, but progressing this doc= ument toward publication without reflecting the other alternate mechanism t= hat IMO is far more widely implemented and deployed=C2=A0will provide a som= ewhat misleading picture.

My request to the author= s is to consider inclusion of text from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/= draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy/ in this WG document. We can discuss f2f= during this week if you agree.

I would l= ike us to seek inputs from implementers and operators on which of these two= mechanisms they prefer/use. Including this in the document would also be h= elpful.

Thanks,
Ketan

On Mon, Mar 2= 7, 2023 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Refresh and to update author= 's contact information.

Dear All,
the draf= t is stable and the authors believe it is ready for the WG LC. We appreciat= e the WG Chairs' consideration for starting the WG LC.

Regards,
Greg (on behalf of the authors)

---------- Forward= ed message ---------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:00=E2=80=AFPM
Subject: New Version = Notification for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
To: Mach Chen (Guoyi) <= mach.chen@huawei.= com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Ilya Varlashkin <imv@google.com>, Jeff Tants= ura <jeffta= nt.ietf@gmail.com>, Jiang Wenying <jiangwenying@chinamobile.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A006
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection= (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
Document date:=C2=A0 2023-03-27
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 spring
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 14
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http= s://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/
Html:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-bfd-06.html Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-bfd
Diff:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-spring= -bfd-06

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of so= urce
=C2=A0 =C2=A0routing.=C2=A0 It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label S= witching
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(MPLS) network without any change to the data plane.=C2=A0 A s= egment is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is e= ncoded
=C2=A0 =C2=A0as a stack of labels.=C2=A0 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection= (BFD) is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0expected to monitor any existing path between systems.=C2=A0 T= his document
=C2=A0 =C2=A0defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0session, control an SR Policy in the reverse direction of the = SR-MPLS
=C2=A0 =C2=A0tunnel, and applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS do= main.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, the document describes the use of BFD Echo with BFD Cont= rol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0packet payload.




The IETF Secretariat


_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--000000000000348b3c05f8007ec2--