IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 04 July 2017 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D441913275D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stFhM6cvkBXA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766D91319E5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B6A91E333; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170704181454.la5hw3nyisneefff@Vurt.local>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 14:36:10 -0400
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <79BF9BD8-5589-48E4-A2ED-478E9BD9E989@pfrc.org>
References: <CACWOCC8tPVD20SJ60h-=NGbPMG3Fae2a0TY5rMFb=EnN7H-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9t1z1hj.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC_bQitHeR9tHc5tPsXmoSDDLQH764equTAHrP854fYh-A@mail.gmail.com> <BF65C4DC-D2F5-41AF-8454-D43B403E328B@juniper.net> <CACWOCC9cmz7ARnWNowCCEu3Rt_NiyuWgJMZ3pWfmxZ_BO8Ovjw@mail.gmail.com> <292534ED-98BC-49A0-82A2-45B6688F851D@juniper.net> <CACWOCC_KTzJLQAJf_j4ZqM1oJSFq9JcyT7aAPLGf3+2Ess7BBA@mail.gmail.com> <09BFF794-6899-4DA5-8EF5-DDF86513BFBA@pfrc.org> <20170704104840.mg5bflnmmjlv4jbi@Vurt.local> <20170704175334.GO2289@pfrc.org> <20170704181454.la5hw3nyisneefff@Vurt.local>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5Hyhpf-iiJTgYndeV4VygEeOP0Y>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:36:13 -0000

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:53:34PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> If you'd like to argue "send them 2, and if they both don't work, let
>> god and their backup paths sort it out", fine.  You're welcome to run
>> your RS that way - if you run a RS.  What I don't understand is why
>> you object to someone else doing something different.
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph?

As unicast to Job, my phrasing was inappropriate and I apologize to any who might be offended.

My point here is that at no point does this document mandate the RS implement path selection mechanisms in response to the reported state from the clients.  However, this shouldn't preclude implementations that desire to make use of such state.

Thus, I don't understand the proscriptive desires.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email