Re: [spring] [pim] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy

Hi Hooman,
thank you for bringing this work to my attention. That draft indeed seems
more appropriate to discuss all issues related to the use of MPLS echo
request/reply in combination with Replication Segment. As I understand it,
DDMAP is a useful optional extension, particularly when applied in a
traceroute mode. I cannot find DDMAP being discussed in RFC 8287
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8287/>. Is it assumed that DDMAP is
not applicable in an SR-MPLS domain? Could there be any specific
procedures for a node in SR-MPLS domain that received an MPLS echo request
message that contains DDMAP TLV?

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 6:49 PM Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <
hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com> wrote:

> Greg
>
>
>
> There is also draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-04 - P2MP Policy Ping
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/04/>
> which is also waiting for last call.
>
>
> Hooman
>
>
>
> *From:* spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Rishabh Parekh
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2024 11:40 AM
> *To:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>; pim@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] [pim] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Some OAM considerations were added to the parent Replication Segment
> document, now RFC 9524, in section 2.2.2 and Appendix A.2.1 during the WGLC
> in SPRING.
>
>
>
> -Rishabh
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:25 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Authors,
>
> thank you for a well-written document that is a pleasure to read. I
> believe that it is ready to progress. However, I have one general
> observation to make. Although IETF documents are required to include an
> analysis of the existing and any new security threats, and requested IANA
> actions, there's no formal requirement to have a text that considers how
> the defined mechanisms affect existing OAM tools, point to any existing
> gaps that have been identified and need further work. As a suggestion, it
> seems that because p2mp SR policies are different from well-known p2p use
> cases, perhaps this document needs some additional text that points to the
> OAM-related aspects, specific to p2mp SR policies, e.g., echo request/reply
> (a.k.a. ping and traceroute), BFD, performance monitoring. WDYT?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:37 AM Michael McBride <
> michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:
>
> Hello good people,
>
>
>
> Today begins a two week wglc for
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08.
> The related (normative) replication segment draft has now been published as
> a standards track RFC. The poll in the Brisbane pim room was 3 in favor and
> 0 against. Please respond with your opinions on the advancement of this
> draft.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>