IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-18

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 29 April 2014 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27DC1A0928; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 x2WRFYNd8foT; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A6F1A0925; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 870EBC220; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:58:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:58:24 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-18
Message-ID: <20140429145824.GR1256@pfrc>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C437CE3@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3941E114938@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C437EA9@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C437EA9@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S3--T7JavuN_nM2FDKCRjPB-_p4
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:58:30 -0000

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:00:05AM -0400, Black, David wrote:
> With respect to the MIB, this concern is a nit, so I'm ok with going ahead without
> making this change ...
> 
> ... However ...
> 
> Your WG chairs and AD should be concerned that this significant flaw in
> BFD version 0 (justifying a "SHOULD NOT use" recommendation) is undocumented.

And also un-RFCed.

It was a "work in progress" that never fully saw the light of full
deployment.  Vendors very quickly moved to version 1 which fixed a critical
issue in the state machine.  If any version 0 survives, it's historical and
likely to be a source of operational agony rather than a useful feature.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email