Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hi Ketan, thank you for your comments and discussion that improved the document. Dear All, the authors appreciate all the comments received and believe that the draft is ready for the WG LC. Greatly appreciate the WG Chairs' consideration of staring LC at the appropriate time. Regards, Greg On

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hi Greg, Thanks for that update. The monitoring at Segment List level looks good to me. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 3:45 PM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Ketan, > thank you for clarifying the SR Policy composition. We've updated the > draft to address your suggestion. I greatly appreciate

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hi Ketan, thank you for clarifying the SR Policy composition. We've updated the draft to address your suggestion. I greatly appreciate it if you review the updates highlighted in the diff and would kindly share your feedback.

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

, Changwang From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 1:08 PM To: Greg Mirsky Cc: Ketan Talaulikar; SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07 Hi Greg I think this is a highly valuable draft for operators

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hi Greg I think this is a highly valuable draft for operators to to be able to monitor the SR policy SID list being instantiated by the BSID binding of candidate path to forwarding plane. I think this could be applicable to SRv6. RFC 9256 SR Policy defines a unidirectional candidate path with

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hi Ketan, thank you for your clarification in the expedient follow-up note. I have a question about the use of the B-SID. As I understand the processing, B-SID would be replaced by the associated segment list in the forwarding plane. Is that right? If it is, it seems like the packet is not

[spring] Comments on draft-ietf-spring-bfd-07

Hello All, Sharing the comments made at the mike in today's session to the list as we ran out of time: 1) The "path" to be monitored for SR Policy should be the Segment List and not Candidate path. Perhaps https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#section-2.13 will clarify the model for SR