Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Fri, 05 February 2016 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6971B3AFD; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:00:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJIO-tpEC5Lf; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:00:10 -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 0A7D91B3B08; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:00:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=50014; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454688010; x=1455897610; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=tNTDa4G/AMvFPIyqKUtNIcf8zT5eTMHDXwaO2tGTHyw=; b=BC3GpAFD3no+6V5y/LILgGntrRQcRYviUYm3BV/ZmcDjDaBlMSR8DjkM 7l/i2s9s9oVq4uKxaR6yG+MVZqyDM4TYDm11XGg/kmbC8rVVRmBIu7UBn dXDyJsg7UsL3ex3RGETmCM0Iz4fK1DAsd+sCmmjc8Yv4lzUzmwIlULyP9 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,401,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="235321908"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Feb 2016 16:00:08 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u15G07Q0008219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:00:08 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:00:07 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:00:06 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>, Manav Bhatia <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:00:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0154264405f54697befe72915d18616fXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>, "" <>, "" <>, " list" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:00:13 -0000

There is no discussion ongoing nor any action item for the authors that I am aware of.
I believe this state exists because we were waiting for discussion on the S-BFD base draft to be resolved.

If ADs require any additional updates they need to tell us – otherwise I think this draft should move forward as is.


From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 7:52 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Manav Bhatia
Cc:; OSPF WG List; list;
Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

I see the DISCUSS on the IS-IS document is still open - are the authors discussing resolution?


From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <<>>
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 9:47 AM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <<>>, Manav Bhatia <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>, "<> list" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RE: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

All of this is fine and as it should be – but the ADs need to tell us if the discussion of this point as regards draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base is concluded and the IGP drafts may proceed.
As draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base has been submitted to IESG for publication I assume this should be resolved but the IS-IS Draft still has this state:

“Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.”



From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 5:00 AM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Manav Bhatia
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);<>; OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Carlos, Manav,
 I remember now as well - this is the text I was referring to after the discussion including Les.

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <<>>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM
To: Manav Bhatia <<>>
Cc: Acee Lindem <<>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Thank you Manav! I remember now :-)

Done :-)


— Carlos.

On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Manav Bhatia <<>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

I think we need to add the following in the current version:

“When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document.”

I dont have the xml with me that i can update. Can you do it if you have one with you?

Cheers, Manav

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <<>> wrote:
Hi, Acee,

On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <<>>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:16 PM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <<>>, Manav Bhatia <<>>, "<>" <<>>, OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Hi, Acee,

Following up on your note below regarding draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator, could you request publication and send this document to the IESG?

Has the document been updated with the proposed text? It hasn’t been modified since Sept 24, 2015.

Yes. The only text modification proposed and to be implemented was done here:

I do not believe there was anything else pending. Do you mean something else?




[BTW, its sibling document on ISIS is already in IESG ballot.]


— Carlos.

On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> wrote:

I was more concerned about the consumer of the information than the IGPs. I did look at base S-BFD draft and I agree this unspecified. Let’s go forward than with the proposed text and I will request publication.