Subject: Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:09:53 -0500

Greg,

Apologies for the long delay in reply.  

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you and
> to publish them to the WG without naming the authors.

Tersely:
- The document is not addressing fundamental issues.
- It is encumbered by IPR.
- Observed list traffic regarding question on the feature was not
  satisfactorily converging.

> And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the
> Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft are
> not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata
> surprised me.

I will respond on my own analysis in detail hopefully this week.  I am
awaiting the resolution of a particular bit of correspondence before
determining the tenor of my response.

-- Jeff

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:52:11 +0000

Hi Jeff, et al.,
thank you for the update. I wanted to clarify the second item, the question
related to the IPR Disclosure. The first disclosure used the "covenant not
to assert" language. The second was to only update the filing status, not
the licensing terms. I believe I've clarified that at the time of asking
for WG AP. I was informed that there's the update to IPR Disclosure on this
work submitted that restores the "covenant not to assert" language. I hope
that can be taken into consideration by you and Reshad.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:53:19 +0000

Hi Jeff, et al.,
I now would like to comment on the point of "not satisfactory convergence"
of discussion. I assume that this is related to the discussion started by
the message
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg04146.html>addressed
to Xiao Min, not to the author of the draft. Oddly enough. But I've
responded nevertheless. Two questions were raised and both were explained:
- BFD Demand mode may be used to monitor the continuity of a path in one
direction and we have two specifications, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint and
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail, that describe how that can be done
without and with notification to the ingress BFD node;
- indeed, it is the liveliness of the path between the BFD systems that are
 monitored.
These were the questions and, in my opinion, both got answered. And now I
got to wonder what other questions need to be addressed? Plans to
implement? In my experience, evaluating a draft in WG AP I, explicitly or
not, answer to these questions:

   - whether the document is coherent;
   - is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks;
   - is the document technically sound?

And I cannot find any unaddressed question that falls into any of these
categories.
Much appreciate comments from BFD WG Chairs.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:52 AM Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff, et al.,
> thank you for the update. I wanted to clarify the second item, the
> question related to the IPR Disclosure. The first disclosure used the
> "covenant not to assert" language. The second was to only update the filing
> status, not the licensing terms. I believe I've clarified that at the time
> of asking for WG AP. I was informed that there's the update to IPR
> Disclosure on this work submitted that restores the "covenant not to
> assert" language. I hope that can be taken into consideration by you and
> Reshad.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>