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

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

Alvaro -

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.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:51 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, 11:05 AM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Les:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> >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
> >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator/ .)
> 
> 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
> Overview):
> 
>    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.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> [*] 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.