Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
I support the adoption of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd by the SPRING WG for the
following reasons:

   - optional control of the reverse path of the BFD session in SR-MPLS
   environment;
   - optional reduction of OAM data exchanged between BFD systems by using
   the BFD in Demand mode over an SR-MPLS tunnel;
   - ability to monitor p2mp SR policies.

I want to highlight the third point. BFD (based on RFC 5880) has solutions
for lightweight mechanisms to detect defects in a p2mp tunnel. The solution
defined in RFC 8562 allows egress BFD nodes to monitor the state of the
head-end and related part of the multicast distribution tree. In some
scenarios, it is desirable for the head-end to be able to know the state of
an egress node and egress's view of the distribution tree. Three options
listed in RFC 8563:

   - head notifications with multicast polling
   - head notifications with composite polling
   - unsolicited notifications

The two first options described in RFC 8563 in detail while the third is
very sketchy. This is the option discussed in the draft, pointing to the
solution defined in draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd.

Always welcome your questions.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM IETF Secretariat <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The SPRING WG has placed draft-mirsky-spring-bfd in state
> Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Joel Halpern)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-spring-bfd/
>
> Comment:
> The authors have requested (quite some time ago) WG adoption for this
> document.  Looking at the archive, there was anot a lot of discussion, and
> some concerns.  Rather than try to infer the current state from the old
> discussions, the WG Chairs have decided to issue a WG call for adoption.
> If
> you support this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list.  If
> you
> oppose this becoming a WG document, please explain on the list.  Silence
> does
> not mean consent.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
>