[spring] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2024 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
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 52346C14F69D; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 nJttvJjtXqFF; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa1-x2d.google.com (mail-oa1-x2d.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71F23C15106E; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa1-x2d.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-29e61fcc3d2so485000fac.2; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734014161; x=1734618961; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=th+ukT3Fr3YFZxPh3OPWwJXPxQ9RZ/1MeVMglq1u87w=; b=A+FqPjmQddJnw8mg6ygDRYv3hs1C/5t62c3TJ/bnJ3MYrCzpIM2/GhityOc8qJ2Erm Dmm6HbTg+WVVaxY7KdQ9F6BZqv0U2ttkN9vyGY6afYnH558HhVEcpJ9x9iwt1vXNcaxc lOppqdwOyX+PYT5YvmUp5ix9FYuqCfM+B/QLkJFk3I3s38lkXLcBbDgiJcXN07ljtDJQ Yp5VXaf7jwiKO+5MWI9g+quHOAShmrAp+ZinYUqd24XOL5TzcSXZ4LbR1XlH0908hrjh UF7+hnDXCQh3dSG1f4+mPZanI3B+BuccnfmootF+U6xFpp2/2UifFmRBC9sfYIdmIhna lBTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734014161; x=1734618961; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=th+ukT3Fr3YFZxPh3OPWwJXPxQ9RZ/1MeVMglq1u87w=; b=G6eaurknkuJ0C97a6+2JpYneA4dCsHXKd+9p6a3R/htSamfGMdhStpetB5KywG6p6P y3rACic7D7Vmz5gTZbQIls+uclS36WQgqyctAXGU+qlHLmuedqrcoo8HyZ93Uc6QLvYP NBP3dDYy+G1rT22iPIdsm1oQJr6w7eRfZ5J48NqMVxS3x1JkyU2oEY+S1aucY9xTlw/3 PpJ2skX4riYgd5nRwRmSUg7MFGYUgAoiK8WNXkhAN2VgiRcng7W20dKXldhKAmhUGfQ2 6+EzVcaF2DUO4vsNOO+VRCM7UnNjKWukvOXGKhZjBPzJMZt57kFYroU8iQZJmXi6oRZn pyug==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW0uibGe3tx/0StX02ZT9rrWGRUgwEV9ST8OXlaitOXgIsgfa2X2JJ4ib0MY6+g93SHyJcurQwpvdiJjT3+n1rXvuyiBS0=@ietf.org, AJvYcCW74+uosP2bewtPM9thUXinMTf578z6L32Sg0p+QCmeZRXzduhAnonu7hUXFz1l3on7AuOvQg==@ietf.org, AJvYcCWQUs3J1LAzPy6PW3MP0RVHVnvQRmYSnxsppqGoKgVfwt4fAzyWQvZs41ombL9zKDcfRPouvaWKQg==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyzuvF2CRpHgRR/hYMmk7zjgL3WAXO+uZudn9vsk3C+KQD9rSQN HQ0BqTSUhrG2FR9D27VlozYK/GE+Dj018qc7HJECRimKwIpi5ZBICrf/voNFoZs5hVx+XN2RY1A cpfgNBXGgjJ0sD3gQ5sePolxgcyX2W2Fc
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsW+CM0+wSRQuluWqKr5/U2bUTPqPaJGQt5FHDCeUvZRIcHeSp5xqXFxEyAcBh 2ZPkKJ1ekfowFJ+iSvp7JEGQxux19HY7Y3OZOhCqtmXnjcR8DaO4fcVdah00WFGr1Eg5a9YqC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFsA030oIRPSe3/A22VGb2W7Tb9xJmGgm5726OLTG4+lTENv+WD+ecao5dW9NvVQiaFvIvfS+dbUCizMmIVBek=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9f13:b0:29e:69d9:8847 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2a381e91e40mr2435259fac.0.1734014161325; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:00 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsz0rdMaKHStNhVfNjxCW6fC0O5eB9c3HzMfmE71Dc5mBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESsyHEPJyg0OqE3NgPKL42KM-6vAwFo-xdvmKMsLs6yvwoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsz0rdMaKHStNhVfNjxCW6fC0O5eB9c3HzMfmE71Dc5mBQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 06:36:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyvpk0B4Tw5eaA64O3MWVvan2wZr+AJev29yOFfBp9eMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f1576062913a23a"
Message-ID-Hash: R27JB74F27LJQU6NQPWJZL7ISKKLZC6J
X-Message-ID-Hash: R27JB74F27LJQU6NQPWJZL7ISKKLZC6J
X-MailFrom: aretana.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-bfd@ietf.org, IETF MPLS List <mpls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-bfd (ends Dec/16)
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uOUlLh2iQJR9auBK5J2qH0vTuRA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>

 [Adding the MPLS WG.]

Hi!

Sorry for the oversight.

Given the low volume of responses and the addition of the mpls WG, we’re
extending this WGLC by one week — until Dec/23.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On December 2, 2024 at 2:51:39 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com)
wrote:

[Sorry for the bad formatting. :-(]

[cc'ing the bfd WG]


Dear WG:

This message starts a two-week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-bfd,
ending on December/16. From the Abstract:

   This document describes using BFD for monitoring individual segment
   lists of candidate paths of an SR Policy. It documents the use of
   various BFD modes and features such as BFD Demand mode, Seamless BFD,
   and BFD Echo function with the BFD Control packet payload in the SR-MPLS
   domain. Also, this document defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping
   to bootstrap a BFD session, with optional control of selecting a segment
   list in the reverse direction of the BFD session.


   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/


Please review the draft and consider whether it is ready to move towards
publication as an RFC. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate
support or opposition -- this is not a vote and silence is not consent.

If you are willing to provide an in-depth review, please go ahead.

The chairs are particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people
who are not authors of the document.  The Shepherd review pointed at a few
items that would benefit from further consideration by the WG, please take
a look:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/E_31dtV4Qx2MM7u9nxuVUnzMOjk/


Thanks!

Alvaro (for the spring-chairs)

On December 2, 2024 at 2:42:25 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com)
wrote:

[cc'ing the bfd WG]Dear WG:This message starts a two-week WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-spring-bfd, ending on December/16. From the Abstract:   This
document describes using BFD for monitoring individual segment    lists of
candidate paths of an SR Policy. It documents the use of    various BFD
modes and features such as BFD Demand mode, Seamless BFD,    and BFD Echo
function with the BFD Control packet payload in the SR-MPLS    domain.
Also, this document defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping    to
bootstrap a BFD session, with optional control of selecting a segment
 list in the reverse direction of the BFD session.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-bfd/     Please review
the draft and consider whether it is ready to move towards publication as
an RFC. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support or
opposition -- this is not a vote and silence is not consent.  If you are
willing to provide an in-depth review, please go ahead.The chairs are
particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not
authors of the document.  The Shepherd review pointed at a few items that
would benefit from further consideration by the WG, please take a look:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/E_31dtV4Qx2MM7u9nxuVUnzMOjk/
 Thanks!Alvaro (for the spring-chairs)