Re: [spring] Followup on my comments on draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shraddha,
thank you for your expedient response and consideration of the
draft-mirsky-spring-bfd. Of course, both drafts can be developed and
discussed separately. I hope that you'll kindly consider adding normative
references to RFC 7110 and draft-mirsky-spring-bfd as the source of the
idea of LSP Ping return path and the non-FEC Path TLV respectively.

Regards,
Greg

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks for comments.
>
> I do see similarities in the protocol extensions although the usecases are
> different.
>
> IMO, it would be good to keep the usecase documents separate but work
> together to
>
> Define protocol extension that can be used by both.
>
>
>
> Rgds
>
> Shraddha
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:29 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> spring <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Followup on my comments on draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam
>
>
>
> Dear Authors, et al.,
>
> I've wanted to continue with my comments to the draft you've presented at
> MPLS WG meeting on Monday. As I've mentioned, please review
> draft-mirsky-spring-bfd
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmirsky-2Dspring-2Dbfd_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=0R9c5FMTGo82tAX5sd_nxg54UG2eSJiL7pGv8DpvBmw&s=885F2-lSJoVpYtIREsDbfsgJ5-uVJYMPlSAoN50oOQ8&e=> and
> Section 4 Use Non-FEC Path TLV in particular. Welcome your comments,
> questions, and hope we can work together on the solution of our use cases.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>