IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 21 March 2023 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2271C151535; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 06:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 H8GaPcf061Rh; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 06:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E1CC14EB17; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (104-10-90-238.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [104.10.90.238]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDAF31E037; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:54:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsx_JDjYsjfKFiDUB4B8aSnZXM7_7KA5=E_vjECXqkgtMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:54:23 -0400
Cc: bfd-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4C34659-6755-40DE-90C6-01354C3D88C4@pfrc.org>
References: <167103067462.48163.5620864981176514078@ietfa.amsl.com> <A0FD440A-10B3-48DD-B788-AA01D6ABD4DA@pfrc.org> <CAMMESsx_JDjYsjfKFiDUB4B8aSnZXM7_7KA5=E_vjECXqkgtMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-hGvHf9mTdTNWUm1wW2KsDnEigM>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:54:27 -0000


> On Mar 21, 2023, at 7:18 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ok -- then, why even mention multihop?  The text should either
> indicate that the document only applies to single hop, or explain the
> security risks.

[...]

> The comparison then seems out of place and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> Note that these are non-blocking comments.  I trust that you will do
> the right thing to avoid unnecessary confusion.

I don't think we're on the same page regarding "unnecessary confusion".

BFD features and profiles have different flavors of applicability.  It's been practice to mention items specifically to say "and this is out of scope".  Examples of this regularly include Echo and Demand modes.  For this document, multihop is out of scope, and explicitly mentioned so.  This prevents the "well, this looks like it could work for multihop" that will inevitably be asked next round.

The same goes for S-BFD.  "Why don't you use this instead?"  Well, here's why.

Yes, these are non-blocking comments.  The explanation is for the archive and for the remainder of the IESG review process.

If you have specific suggestions that make this more clear _for you_, I'm sure the authors would be happy to consider such edits.  

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email