Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro -

I think you are referring to this text from https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-05.txt

Section 3

"...Allocated S-BFD discriminators may be advertised by
   applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS)."

This is (in my view) poorly worded bordering on inaccurate.

In the context of the IS-IS/OSPF drafts we are defining a way to advertise the S-BFD Discriminator(s) assigned to a given node. This does not imply any usage of these values by the IGPs. 

It is conceivable that the IGPs could find a use for an S-BFD session and in that context the IGPs would be an S-BFD client and considered an "S-BFD application". But that is NOT what is covered in the current IGP drafts - nor is it within scope.
So I reiterate, the current discussion regarding how applications decide which S-BFD discriminator should be used is out of scope for the existing IGP drafts.

The entire discussion belongs in the BFD WG. 

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 10:12 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Benoit Claise (bclaise); The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-
> discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
> 
> On 11/18/15, 12:47 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> Les:
> 
> >Neither IS-IS nor OSPF are the "application" here. We are simply the
> >transport for an opaque piece of information. It makes no sense to me
> >to ask the IGPs to clarify what is an issue between S-BFD and an application.
> 
> What you say makes sense.
> 
> It also makes sense to me that one could argue that since we're transporting
> opaque information we could also include an extra piece of opaque
> information to let someone else know what the first piece was for.
> Note that I'm offering that scenario just as an example of the fact that there
> are at least a couple of potential interpretations.
> 
> Because of the language used in the Base S-BFD draft (where it does call
> OSPF/IS-IS an "application", [1]), I just want to play it safe and make sure
> we're not pointing at each other and that result won't be that no one does
> the mapping.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> [1]
> 
>    session.  Allocated S-BFD discriminators may be advertised by
>    applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS).  Required result is that
>    applications, on other network nodes, possess the knowledge of the
>    mapping from remote entities to S-BFD discriminators.  The reflector
>