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

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Wed, 18 November 2015 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFB11A86EB; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:50:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EWE85oUbrRW; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31EB71A8735; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:50:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1887; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447865441; x=1449075041; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=G+8hfKRP/SsASZODr34ImXe3I+StMst+5pUHrTyxGrk=; b=cXmzR0hXd6gvPWK0s6E/P1rX1I4w7KKuOU/pBe972kOsRXIy8b8tDob7 0635zdiMah8uqMX+JEYkShPnYjkgYTugVQlIciP/lWo5J8E2OE17Mq3g9 4qiIaDv/SF/jRHqk833NgT80aIyD2WM7bOUTc19B2BkntWMtKWfD8zGaW k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D6AQDLq0xW/4YNJK1egztTbwa8NIIaA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZSGFboFQOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQIEOj8SAQg2BT0nBAENBRuIEw2/LAEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhlQBhH2JOQWSaINiAYUgiAqCJJogAR8BAUKCRIFAcoQFg?= =?us-ascii?q?QcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,313,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="209689005"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2015 16:50:40 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAIGoefF026817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:50:40 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:50:39 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:50:39 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIiFB3oT0ZHOz/0u8s9y2YKt7mQ==
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:50:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 16:50:42 -0000

On 11/18/15, 11:05 AM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
< on behalf of> wrote:



>I do appreciate that people would like an answer to the question of how
>to map multiple discriminators to use cases - but that is not within the
>purview of this document (or its companion OSPF document). We are simply
>defining how to transport an opaque (to the IGP) value. Anything further
>belongs in the base S-BFD document. I think further discussion on this
>point belongs there. (I have made the same statement in regards to the
>same discussion within the context of
> .)

I think we're in a situation where we have documents/assumptions pointing
at each other.  While you may be right[*], I think we need to settle
before going forward.

Note that the base S-BFD document reads in Section 3. (Seamless BFD

   An S-BFD module on each network node allocates one or more S-BFD
   discriminators for local entities, and creates a reflector BFD
   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.

This text reads to me that S-BFD is expecting the mapping to be somehow
provided by the "applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS)".  There's no other
explicit discussion about the mapping in that document.

Right after sending this e-mail I'm going to put a DISCUSS on this draft
to hold it so we (including the BFD WG, etc.) can answer who is expected
to do what.



[*] I know the same point was brought up by Acee in the OSPF list, and the
l2tpext draft also takes on the same solution approach.