Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:14 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Do you remember who this comment came from?  I definitely think anyone who
> reads the abstract of the draft wouldn’t be confused and don’t agree with
> the comment.
>
>
>
> Also, this is meant to be a per-interface sub-option of the existing BFD
> configuration – right?
>

That's why I was asking whether multi-hop BFD is in scope (multi-hop BFD is
not enabled per interface). If so, then some suggestions:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wffR6A6Vq-wtKYPiLE2wuVyJDNY/

Regards,
Muthu

> There is at least one place that would lead one to believe it is pre-node.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:31 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "
> lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for
> BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> The authors had picked the term "*OSPF BFD Strict-Mode*" originally -
> please refer to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-01.
> However, post IETF presentation, we got feedback from WG members that the
> term was misleading and gave an impression that the proposal was
> introducing a "strict-mode" in BFD. What we are doing is introducing a
> "strict-mode" of operation in OSPF for BFD usage.
>
>
>
> We are open to any suggestions for change/clarity.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:07 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking as Document Shepherd:
>
>
>
> I have some editorial comments that I will pass on to the authors offline.
> One change I didn’t suggest since it was a big change was from “Strict-Mode
> for BFD” to simply “BFD Strict-Mode”. What are your thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> We’ve had some good discussion and an updated version is coming with some
> updates based on that discussion. Remember that we don’t necessarily have
> to incorporate every suggested change but simply need to conclude the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Friday, January 28, 2022 at 7:24 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for
> BFD" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> Speaking as WG member:
>
>
>
> I support publication of the document. As indicated by the Albert Fu, it
> has been implemented by two vendors. I will provide WG Last Call comments
> when I prepare the Shepherd’s report.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:09 PM
> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
>
>
>
> LSR WG,
>
>
>
> This begins a two week last call for the subject draft. Please indicate
> your support or objection on this list prior to 12:00 AM UTC on February 11
> th, 20222. Also, review comments are certainly welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>