IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption call for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-* (ends April 30, 2017)

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Mon, 17 April 2017 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
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 5B8EA129462 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v88G8YYFdx-a for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D0C1242F7 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11212; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492472385; x=1493681985; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=wsQXwrwL1BYf07QZohACq1Rho6k4fM5PUYE1uxkzF/g=; b=loLnDKiiQdB3feYBhVMm1iuRtMZq9p0WD8LRA9NEAl9clC89ime3adFg gJszDuAiPzoBHPDoFDiMiWWQTE6lT/gWErEbedPAOBpS0IMvF6N5M2yW4 1Icq4DD/qb67nL7GNtXDJ5Ow3vLLjoXouS8aTdt2doZ3feUn4zzMh95fJ g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DDAgAXUfVY/4ENJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1NhgQsHg1+KFZE+kEyFNIIPLoV2AhqDaj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFgYdBksLEAIBCA4xAwICAjAUEQIEDgUbiXwOAqp+giaLIQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhlKBXSsKgmOBPIJtEAIBgyEugjEFnRsBhwOLYYF/hTCKF5QJAR84fQhjFUQRAYRUDBCBY3WIDoENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,217,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="232229519"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Apr 2017 23:39:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3HNdh2m016851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:39:44 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:39:43 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:39:43 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption call for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-* (ends April 30, 2017)
Thread-Topic: Adoption call for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-* (ends April 30, 2017)
Thread-Index: AQHSt8zDNKRTrWqs+kOJ3Tq8NFHE3qHKezoA
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:39:43 +0000
Message-ID: <B14F6006-540C-4590-91DF-4F434F571AC2@cisco.com>
References: <20170417225539.GE18219@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170417225539.GE18219@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.233.250]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B14F6006540C459091DF4F434F571AC2ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/1vAK4s7UZj_fOKER3C6F57XGYkk>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:39:47 -0000

Jeff and Reshad,

I do not support adoption of either draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-01 or draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls-01.

The overall problem and proposed solution did not seem to have received much discussion. I was only able to find one email thread on the list, over a year ago.

Regarding the problem statement, it’s strange that there’s no normative definition or anything to MG-LAG… further, the meeting notes from IETF96 say things like:
          John Messenger: Would suggest work done in 802.1 to analyze those
          considerations with 802, it would be necessary to coordinate to work
          with them. Send a mail to IETF-IEEE802 coordination group.
          Jeff Haas: Can we sign you as a reviewer to this draft?

What is the problem again, beyond what’s already well specified in RFC 7130? Is this again a quick “solution” looking for an RFC number?

Regarding the proposed solution, the one email thread seems to have pointed out some serious issues not considered:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/OLWLCf6dn-3zxGZboTKVqUwSr6w
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/nwfLfudDdNw7PyJbpP-RVnVFMcQ
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/EuRObko0JO40_4UPB4buR0iyxcg
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/QUb5rj882TKeAAXyTof4ycq2DUg

Additionally, why the split into two drafts for this? The text of both documents overall seems forgotten, even sloppy, with many typos (“MPSL”, “Indvidual”, etc), and copy/paste text between the two documents. The complete Introduction and Problem Statement are verbatim copy/paste, and include things like:

  This document
   proposes how to overcome this problem if using IP or Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) data plane encapsulation.

which is not the case for either document.

Technically, using multicast here exercises a different path, and using a GAL does as well. What are we testing?

Net-net, do not support.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On Apr 17, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org<mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:

Working Group,

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls/

The authors of BFD on Multi-Chass Link Aggregation Group Interfaces for IP
and MPLS have requested BFD working group adoption for their drafts.

These drafts were previously presented at IETF-96.

Please note that IPR has been declare against these drafts.  The IPR
declaration may be found from the datatracker links.

Please indicate your support/lack of support to the mailing list.

-- Jeff and Reshad

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email