[L2tpext] FW: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: (with DISCUSS)

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

Jeff/Reshad:

Hi!  How are you?

I need you to please drive the discussion below.  The outcome should be
consensus on how the mapping between multiple discriminators and
applications/use cases on a node should be handled.  I can guess at 3
potential outcomes:

1. The "applications (e.g., OSPF/IS-IS)" should handle it.
2. The S-BFD Base specification will detail how to do it (not requiring
additional work from the applications).
3. We'll deal with this issue somewhere else (not requiring additional
work from the applications).

[Maybe there are more options.]

Please keep isis/ospf/l2tpext in the loop.

Even in the best case, we're probably going to need some clarification in
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base.

BTW, if you decide to follow this thread..  I fat fingered the address of
the l2tpext WG. :-(


Thanks!

Alvaro.


On 11/18/15, 12:06 PM, "iesg on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02: Discuss
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It has been pointed out during the processing of this document (and other
>similar ones, draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator, for example) that the
>functionality provided is only the advertisement of S-BFD discriminators,
>but not a mechanism to map these discriminators to specific applications
>or use-cases in the nodes.  That mapping has been declared out of scope.
>
>However, the Base S-BFD draft (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base) assumes that
>the advertisers of the multiple discriminators will in fact provide the
>ability for the mapping.  Specifically, 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.
>
>I'm putting a DISCUSS on this document to hold its processing while the
>requirements from the S-BFD point of view are clarified.  The answer to
>that question should be a discussion in the BFD WG (cc'd in this
>message), in coordination with the providers of the advertisements (so
>far the isis, ospf and l2tpext WGs have active drafts in this area).
>
>One possible outcome of this required discussion is clearly that the
>mapping is in fact outside the scope of advertising protocols (such as
>IS-IS).  Other possible outcomes may require this document to be
>modified.
>
>
>
>