Hi Dale, Thank you for the review and your thoughtful questions. Please find my notes below, tagged 'GIM>>'. I attached the new working version (it also includes updates that address comments from RtgDir review).
Regards, Greg On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 8:42 AM Dale Worley via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Document: draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements > Title: Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for > Bit > Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer Reviewer: Dale Worley Review > result: > Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-18 > Reviewer: Dale R. Worley > Review Date: 2025-10-05 > IETF LC End Date: 2025-10-08 > IESG Telechat date: [not known] > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. > > I am not an expert on routing. So I cannot comment on whether the > list of requirements in section 2 is necessary or sufficient for BIER > OAM. From from an outside-looking-in point of view, I have the > following questions about the requirement statements. I expect that > they are all "nits", the authors and WG agree on the intention of the > requirements and what I am requesting is that they be more clearly > stated (for the inexpert reader). > > I assume that the term "support XYZ" is understood to mean that the > BIER OAM specification MUST specify particular ways of doing XYZ, not > just the general concept "It must be possible to put on top of BIER > OAM some method of doing XYZ." Although I notice that requirements 2, > 3, and 6 do not use the word "support"; do they apply to BIER OAM in a > different way than the others? > GIM>> Your understanding of the idea and scope of the document is absolutely correct. Indeed, the requirements collected in Section 2 are functional requirements that define a particular capability that is essential for providing a comprehensive apparatus for an operator of the BIER network. Documents that specify the particular mechanism or protocol, e.g., echo request/reply, a.k.a., ping/traceroute draft-ietf-bier-ping <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ping/>, or the application of BFD in the BIER network draft-ietf-bier-bfd <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bfd/>, are expected to refer to the requirements from this document and demonstrate how the described mechanism conforms to these requirements. > > 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both > continuity check (e.g., Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) > [RFC8562]) and performance measurement (e.g., Simple Two-way > Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762]). > > Is "unidirectional OAM" a known term of art? Naively I do not think > of any OAM operation as "unidirectional", as any OAM operation will > involve some client element sending packets to effect an OAM operation > to some targeted server element, which will send a response. But > perhaps "unidirectional OAM" means "OAM that is only concerned with > one direction of packet flow on the particular path". > GIM>> Thank you for this question. In general, some OAM mechanisms and protocols are unidirectional, e.g., RFC 4656 A One-way Active Measurement Protocol <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4656>. Thinking about a better term, would "one-way" be clearer? Or, perhaps, replace unidirectional with downstream? > > 6. BIER OAM packets in the forward direction (i.e., from the > ingress toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session) > MUST be transmitted in-band, as defined in Section 1.1.1. > > Is "in the forward direction" a known term of art? The statement > seems to presuppose that all OAM operations are test sessions of > traffic from an ingress endpoint to an egress endpoint. But ISTM that > many "management" operations involve a control device issuing > e.g. configuration commands to controlled devices. But perhaps "OAM" > is a term of art restricted to "monitoring traffic flows and > generating test traffic flows" and does not include such "operational" > traffic as configuration operations. > GIM>> Thank you for highlighting another opportunity to make terminology consistent. The interpretation of OAM follows RFC 6291 that clarifies the distinction between objectionves of Operation, Administration, and Maintenance methods, and Operations and Management. The "forward direction" is used in the downstream sense. Would using the 'downstream' in the requirement help the reader? Also, if the term is used to replace all occurrences of 'unidirectional', it might make sense adding following in Terminology: NEW TEXT: Downstream - is the direction from the ingress toward the egress endpoints of a multicast distribution tree. > > 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability > by a BFR in the given BIER domain, e.g., p2mp BFD active tail > support [RFC9780]. > > The phrase "by a BFR" seems ambiguous. Does it mean that there MUST > exist *some* BFR that can monitor, or MUST *every* BFR be able to > monitor? The quantifier of "BFR" here seems to be very important, and > probably that phrase should be clarified and moved toward the > beginning of the sentence. E.g. "BIER OAM MUST support the ability of > any BFR in the given BIER domain to proactively monitor BFER > availability...". But that raises the question of *which* BFER paths > each BFR MUST be capable of monitoring. I suspect the WG has a > consensus on that but it isn't stated explicitly here to my reading. > GIM>> The intention of the requirement is ensuring that any BFR in the BIER domain may serve as a BFIR for a multicast distribution tree. Thus, the BFR is required to monitor the leaves of the multicast distribution tree, i.e., BFERs. I applied the proposed text to get the following: NEW TEXT: 8. BIER OAM MUST support the ability of any BFR in the given BIER domain to proactively monitor BFER availability, e.g., p2mp BFD active tail support [RFC9780]. > > 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement > methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay, and delay > variation metrics [RFC6374]. STAMP ([RFC8762] and [RFC8972]) is > an example of an active performance measurement method and > performance metrics that may be applied in a BIER domain. The > Alternate Marking Method, described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342], > is an example of a hybrid measurement method ([RFC7799]) that > may be applied in a BIER domain. > > The use of the plural "methods" literally means that OAM MUST support > more than one one method. I suggest "BIER OAM MUST support > unidirectional performance measurement method(s) that (together) > calculate throughput, loss, delay, and delay variation metrics > [RFC6374]" > GIM>> Thank you for the suggested editorial update. I applied it in the working version with additional modification to make it more generic: NEW TEXT: 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement method(s) that (together) calculate performance metrics, e.g., throughput, loss, delay, and delay variation metrics [RFC6374]. STAMP ([RFC8762] and [RFC8972]) is an example of an active performance measurement method and performance metrics that may be applied in a BIER domain. The Alternate Marking Method, described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342], is an example of a hybrid measurement method ([RFC7799]) that may be applied in a BIER domain. > 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm > Indication Signal [RFC6427]. Any BFR in the given BIER domain > MAY originate a fault management message [RFC6427] addressed to > any subset of BFRs within the domain. > > As above, I suggest "BIER OAM MUST support defect notification > mechanism(s)." GIM>> Done. > The second sentence isn't phrased quite right; it is > stated as something that a BFR MAY do but the requirement is > implicitly a MUST on the BIER OAM design. I suggest "BIER OAM MUST > provide a way for [or "support"] any BFR in the given BIER domain to > originate a fault management message [RFC6427] addressed to any subset > of BFRs within the domain." > GIM>> I agree. As this is a new requirement, I spawn it as follows: NEW TEXT: 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism(s), like Alarm Indication Signal [RFC6427]. 14. BIER OAM MUST support a way for any BFR in the given BIER domain to originate a fault management message, e.g., [RFC6427], addressed to any subset of BFRs within the domain. > > I notice that many other requirements specify that BIER OAM must > support a particular feature and then name a particular technique as > one way the feature could be supported. But this requirement > specifies that the defect notification mechanism MUST be RFC6427 in > the second sentence. Although oddly, the first sentence just names > RFC6427 as one possible notification mechanism. Is RFC6427 a MUST or > just an example? One or the other sentence should be adjusted > accordingly. > GIM>> The intention of the reference to RFC 6427 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6427.html> was to be exemplary. I made that explicit in the updated text. > > 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable the survivability of a > BIER layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching > and restoration. > > This seems too vague to me. Is the intention "BIER OAM MUST support > one or more methods that enable the survivability of a BIER layer."? > This is a case where the meaning of "support" is particularly > important. > GIM>> Thank you for pointing this issue out. Would the following update make it clearer: NEW TEXT: 15. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable the survivability of a BIER layer. Protection switching and restoration are examples of survivability methods. > > There are a few requirements that have single sentences that describe > MUST requirements and then mention a possible mechanism for satisfying > that MUST. This applies to requirements 5, 8, 10, and 13. For > clarity, I suggest separating the example into a different sentence > than the MUST to avoid any confusion regarding what is being > required. Requirement 12 is an example of what I think is a better > format. > GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion to improve clarity and readability of the document. I edited these requirements accordingly. Please let me know if I got it right. > > [END] > > > >
BIER Working Group G. Mirsky, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational N. Kumar
Expires: 11 April 2026 Oracle
M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
S. Pallagatti, Ed.
VMware
8 October 2025
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer
draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-19
Abstract
This document specifies a list of functional requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance mechanisms, protocols,
and tools that support operations in the Bit Index Explicit
Replication layer of a network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 April 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
[RFC8279] specifies a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data
packets.
This document lists the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) requirements for the BIER layer see Section 4.2 of [RFC8279])
of the multicast domain. The list can further be used for gap
analysis of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of
existing or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive
and on-demand path monitoring and service validation.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
The reader is expected to be familiar with [RFC7799], particularly
definitions of Active, Passive, and Hybrid measurement methods and
metrics.
The term "BIER OAM" is used in this document interchangeably with a
more extended version, "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for
BIER layer".
Downstream - is the direction from the ingress toward the egress
endpoints of a multicast distribution tree.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
* In-band OAM is an active OAM or hybrid OAM method [RFC7799] in
which OAM packets traverse the same set of links and interfaces,
and receive the same QoS treatment, as the monitored BIER flow
(traffic flows in [RFC7011]).
* Out-of-band OAM refers to an active OAM method in which the path
traversed through the BIER domain is not topologically identical
to that of the monitored BIER flow, or in which the OAM test
packets receive different QoS treatment, or both.
* OAM session is a communication established between network nodes
to perform OAM functions like fault detection, performance
monitoring, and localization [RFC7276]. These sessions can be
proactive (continuous, persistent configuration) or on-demand
(manual, temporary diagnostics).
1.1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The requirements language is used in Section 2 and applies to
implementations of BIER OAM conformant to the listed requirements.
1.1.3. Acronyms
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC8562]
BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router [RFC8279]
BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router [RFC8279]
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication [RFC8279]
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [RFC6291]
p2mp: Point-to-Multipoint [RFC8562]
RDI: Remote Defect Indication
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol [RFC8762]
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
2. Requirements
This section lists the requirements for OAM of the BIER layer:
1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any routing
underlay [RFC8279] over which the BIER layer can be realized.
2. It MUST be possible to initialize a BIER OAM session from any
Bit-Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain.
3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize a BIER OAM session from a
centralized controller.
4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and
measurement methods.
5. BIER OAM MUST support downstream path continuity check.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC8562] is an example
of a protocol that monitors the continuity of a multicast
distribution tree.
6. BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement.
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is
an example of a protocol that supports measurement of
performance metrics, e.g., packet loss ratio, delay, and delay
variation.
7. BIER OAM packets in the forward direction (i.e., from the
ingress toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session)
MUST be transmitted in-band, as defined in Section 1.1.1.
8. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such methods
MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the forward
direction with out-of-band notification, as defined in
Section 1.1.1, in the reverse direction (i.e., from the egress
toward the ingress endpoint of the OAM test session, as in
Point-to-Multipoint (p2mp) BFD with active tail [RFC9780]).
9. BIER OAM MUST support the ability of any BFR in the given BIER
domain to monitor BFER availability proactively. The p2mp BFD
with active tail support [RFC9780] is an example of a protocol
that provides notifications about the loss of connectivity in a
multicast distribution tree.
10. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery
[RFC1191].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
11. BIER OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI) [RFC6428]
notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit-
Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs). The Diagnostic field in p2mp
BFD with active tail support, as described in Section 5 of
[RFC9780], is an example of the RDI mechanism.
12. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement
methods [RFC7799].
13. BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement
method(s) that (together) calculate performance metrics, e.g.,
throughput, loss, delay, and delay variation metrics [RFC6374].
STAMP ([RFC8762] and [RFC8972]) is an example of an active
performance measurement method of performance metrics that may
be applied in a BIER domain. The Alternate Marking Method,
described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342], is an example of a hybrid
measurement method ([RFC7799]) that may be applied in a BIER
domain.
14. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism(s), like
Alarm Indication Signal [RFC6427].
15. BIER OAM MUST support a way for any BFR in the given BIER domain
to originate a fault management message addressed to any subset
of BFRs within the domain. [RFC6427] provides an example of a
Fault Management messaging mechanism.
16. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable the survivability of a
BIER layer. Protection switching and restoration are examples
of survivability methods.
3. IANA Considerations
This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section
may be removed.
4. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirement for a BIER-enabled domain and
thus inherits security considerations discussed in [RFC8279] and
[RFC8296]. Another general security aspect results from using active
OAM protocols, according to the [RFC7799], in a multicast network.
Active OAM protocols inject specially constructed test packets, and
some active OAM protocols are based on the echo request/reply
principle. In the multicast network, test packets are replicated as
data packets, thus creating a possible amplification effect of
multiple echo responses being transmitted to the sender of the echo
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
request. Thus, an implementation of BIER OAM MUST protect the
control plane from spoofed replies. Also, an implementation of BIER
OAM MUST provide control of the number of BIER OAM messages sent to
the control plane.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from
Gunter van de Velde that helped improve this document.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7. Informative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC6427] Swallow, G., Ed., Fulignoli, A., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed.,
Boutros, S., and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 6427, DOI 10.17487/RFC6427, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6427>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
[RFC6428] Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed.,
"Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,
and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9342>.
[RFC9780] Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake 3rd,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint
Networks over Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 9780, DOI 10.17487/RFC9780, May 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9780>.
Contributors' Addresses
Erik Nordmark
Email: [email protected]
Sam Aldrin
Google
Email: [email protected]
Lianshu Zheng
Email: [email protected]
Nobo Akiya
Email: [email protected]
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky (editor)
Ericsson
Email: [email protected]
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM Requirements for BIER October 2025
Nagendra Kumar
Oracle
Email: [email protected]
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: [email protected]
Santosh Pallagatti (editor)
VMware
Email: [email protected]
Mirsky, et al. Expires 11 April 2026 [Page 9]
<<< text/html; charset="US-ASCII"; name="draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-19.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
