IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Reviews of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 30 January 2024 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81D7C14F6BF; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOtj48kA2nNo; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 909CFC14F6A7; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 40UI4t00007441; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:55 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10214604A; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F634604C; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([85.255.237.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 40UI4sKC010429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify@ietf.org
Cc: 'mpls-chairs' <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org
References: <001301da5383$84477e30$8cd67a90$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <001301da5383$84477e30$8cd67a90$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:04:54 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <008801da53a6$d4b773c0$7e265b40$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJa7O0dpQQ/Ij939ME5g7JfS+t0Ya/xavjQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 85.255.237.126
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= 20221128; bh=tHm1Horyxr22Mksqo3W9WOWqfgXM/t30DMxe27L+oto=; b=BFw zkkBRfuL2eFz32usWxDzDRP+DcPqL/BdI9Hqfl+YQJpwl4P/TxCvA/W3kNbxNsnt mVFHRsqA3MKx/YkjwzjTYbpoq8j8FUnTGglWBtmyWfdKGO18EwLZ6NVN8jWPVDF+ /k4EUSChdx2/p3fy4rUAvrkx8dP7yYp9YIOzeds4B4/g5heGvDHApNitq/Br+lQK yevRukmm+zTE3OpGwn+fGtfqib+MiYqSfbOCR/J2GgO/qFja8u90JHbPHO+o4dRb h1HChQPTEzSBr7fMxHfy3nZlN51bJN/VEh4JBiwZiV4S1l4fjVJDQUAHo+R/ltLM g+KbaH86LVZUV32x6DA==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28152.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.613-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.613-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28152.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.613400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: C/snMIRQLS3xIbpQ8BhdbAPZZctd3P4BwdP+8YXeAclShcWO/83xosu3 fu7mGETZIx/OqCk5J12KVKsmUucLWIuBeCEZUtCSboT9s9dVCZpPnKxAOPp4WWC4CjeNgIzyNsR TtOaLQuHaTdn1TswFIcxPpVdMrFeNGm8BdQXdrVENmz8qCap2S5Lcb1TGljGwtXl9IxEPXOpvGS QljnHkk7fVElO3d2YLSYkyhKRGIg9bfvdQs7OwLNodT+kwNKQbNroBpCbt+GYVdewhX2WAASO3J 80qWMSDmJ1SGTfzcz22J4OybX9Fbfh5cxaw7VEM9dFc7Qbe8mplH44U2Ru12rBm7KRKfr78gKer 2q0Zy9XY6l6Q0ccySrcm79m33DGj5s2E/HDpG1m8coKUcaOOvaHUCV2g3senQmw1cPfvj6lOx35 wf8X3qjsjLjEwO02ey27ymPMJR0RccQ8eam5EfTl/1fD/GopdyJ1gFgOMhOld53N/THR94QzKt8 /2P4LV33fj+sMArfNRzX47Vf0DMQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/e3hPOFoG2M1sxtGXF5uCqmpyvI0>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Reviews of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:05:06 -0000

Authors,

Developing the question of updating RFC 5884 further...
The chairs have talked about this and consulted with the BFD chairs.
We do not understand why an update to a BFD working group RFC is being
brought to the MPLS working group even though it could be construed as being
in scope as MPLS-related work.
We have examined the email thread rooted at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/zI8zMXoKyXtt0dWxjb02tXXiBiM/
and it appears that there was some debate about whether it was necessary to
make this update to protect a "naif implementation" and to protect against
something "that doesn't cause any harm".

Further, we note that there are related Errata reports filed against RFC
5884. If those reports are insufficient, should the RFC itself not be
revisited?

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 30 January 2024 13:52
To: draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify@ietf.org
Cc: 'mpls-chairs' <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Reviews of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify

Hi authors of draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-bootstrap-clarify,

In preparation for considering an adoption poll on your draft, I solicited
some reviews from members of the MPLS Review Team.

Carlos sent his review to the list, and you can see it at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ch5giz4OzWVtDW2YIp225wVAISU/

A further review that reached me contained two thoughts:
1. Which WG does this document belong to? This document says it plans to
update RFC 5884, which is the product of BFD WG. 
2. Will this update make some existing implementations not complying to
standards? For example, the text in the end of section 3 refers to
I-D.kompella-mpls-lspping-norao and says the return mode in this case MUST
NOT be set to 3.

Additionally, Joel Halpern sent a pre-emptive adoption poll review which you
can see at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/SzxY7OC763zjbeW57iHdlLfq2Fw/

While there is some work that needs to be done on the document, nothing
seems to be so big that it cannot be handled later (as updates after an
adoption poll). However, if you want to get on and address the issues in a
new revision, that might be a good thing.

However, the question about in which working group this draft belongs is an
important one. I am currently discussing this with the BFD chairs and will
get back to you. If you have opinions, please state them.

Meanwhile, there is no harm in doing a quick IPR poll, and I'll start that
in another thread.

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email